|
Back to FrontPage
On his other
question as to Johor having its own water treatment plants
and they may not buy treated water, that is entirely their
right. The Water Agreements provide for them to purchase
certain amount of treated water from Singapore. In fact
they have been purchasing amounts beyond the amounts
stipulated. But, if they choose not to that is their
rights. We cannot compel them to purchase treated water
from us.
As for the next step, we have stated our position that the
way forward is through peaceful, amicable settlement of
disputes. What does that mean? In normal diplomatic
practice, two countries discuss and negotiate to try to
find an agreement. I have outlined in the chronology how
we have tried to do that. We have been reasonable but
there is an impasse. So what do we do after the impasse?
Then I pointed out either the PCA or we follow the terms
of the Agreements which provide for arbitration. And, I
contrasted this with the loose talk of war, which is
certainly not the way forward.
Mr R.
Ravindran : First, could I ask the Minister why
does Singapore maintain that Johor has lost the right of
review when the Water Agreements itself provide for the
review after 25 years but does not specify when exactly
when such a review should take place? The second question
is: could the Minister explain why Singapore is not
insisting the price review be referred to the ICJ or the
Permanent Court of Arbitration?
Answer:
As to the first question, Mr Ravindran as a lawyer and so
a few other Members, but I do not think this is a place to
engage in a detailed legal analysis of the Water Agreement
provisions. I think I have mentioned before that if you
look at the Water Agreements which you have in the bundle,
both have clauses on price review which provide that the
rates can be reviewed or the charges can be reviewed after
25 years. Now you can have a legal argument as to whether
it should be on the 25th year, or at any time after 25
years, or within a reasonable period, after 1986-87. Now,
we have a legal advice which has said that the Malaysia
has lost its right of review. While that is a legal issue
which will have to be debated at an appropriate forum and
I have in fact said it is a matter that can also be put
through the process under the Water Agreements.
It is important to also note in this context that
Malaysian leaders have said that they chose deliberately
not to review at that time they were entitled to because
they feared that the price of treated water supplied by
Singapore would also be reviewed. Because the review
clauses cannot apply only to raw water, it must also apply
to treated water.
Now, another factor that I should mention which we pointed
out to the Malaysians that if they had exercise the right
to review then, it might well have caused different
decisions on our part as to the amounts of money that
would have been invested and have invested in Johor on
various kinds of works which actually have come to more
than a billion Singapore dollars - waterworks, pipe lines,
ancillary works, the Linggiu Dam. So this is a question
will have to be decided at an appropriate time. But we
have taken legal advice. But while we are on the subject,
even though we took the legal position, we told the
Malaysians, we know this is important to you, so we are
prepared to discuss this in the context of the package. In
other words, on a without prejudiced basis. But if you
take it out of the package, shelve future water to 2059
and insist on discussing just existing water, then we will
have to go by the terms of the provisions of the
Agreements. And they have a legal view, we have a legal
view.
The second part of your question is why not international
arbitration and adjudication. I would say that, as a
general principle, if you ask me as a Foreign Minister and
as someone who has taught international law, I think when
countries have disputes, it is always preferable to have
international adjudication, or international arbitration.
But as you know, as Mr Ravindran knows, that is not
something that you can compel another side. It requires
consensual basis. Both disputing parties must agree to
that international arbitration process. And in this case,
I think of course, it is better for international
credibility and transparency and the signals we are giving
to the international community that even this dispute is
referred to, say, like the PCA. But they have said, no.
But how do we resolve it amicably? So we have to fall back
on the provisions, and the provisions provide for
arbitration by that particular mode, and we are parties to
the agreement, and we have said, ok!. We followed the
provisions in the agreement.
Ms Irene Ng
Phek Hong: Can we not insist that the more proper
forum would be the PCA as it is a more neutral body. If we
go according to the law to Johor, it may not be as neutral
as we would like it to be. And I would think that if
Malaysia is confident of its case, as you said it is, it
would be prepared to take it to the PCA. My second
question is also on the water issue. Given that it is 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?
Answer:
First part of Irene Ng's question, why shall we not insist
and so on? But I have just answered Ravindran's question
that PCA requires the consent of both sides. You can
insist, but it requires the consent. It is preferable, I
think, that is my view. But we deal with the situation as
it exists. We cannot compel them. So we fall back on the
provisions of the Water Agreements.
On the second part of the question as to can we assure the
House. You have heard both Prime Minister Goh and my
colleague, Minister Lim Swee Say, informed 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 is important is that the obligations under
the Water Agreements must be complied with. And that is
why I said that is very important. It is not only
important from the theoretical principle of observance of
international agreements; it is critical for our existence
and survival.
Mr S.
Iswaran: 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 of 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 appreciate if the Minister
could clarify the thinking behind such a move.
And secondly, we have taken a move of great gravity on a
matter that has been at the center of bilateral ties
between Singapore and Malaysia. I think Singaporeans would
want to know how is this going to repercuss the broader
bilateral ties between our two countries because we have
stated that we want to move on on the issue of water and
other matters and find a solution. And we would appreciate
some clarification from the Minister on that.
Answer:
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 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. 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.
Mr Low Thia
Khiang: The Minister had said that there is good
cooperation between civil servants of Home Affairs
Ministry and I wonder if the civil servants can strike
such a cooperation with the Malaysian counterparts and why
is our Minister not able to? In fact, 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.
Secondly, I understand that we have a non-speculative
Foreign Minister who is always based on facts, very
diplomatic, very accommodating and I think the
negotiations were even prepared to dance with the
Malaysians from 45 sen to 3 ringgit and so on for water
supplies. But I wonder up to this point in time with the
approach that has been taken, 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?
Answer:
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.
Pedra
Branca
Ms Indranee Rajah: I have a few questions for
the Minister arising from certain facts that the Minister
has put forward. We know that Singapore has exercised
sovereignty over Pedra Branca since the 1840s. We know
that we had separation in 1965, and the first time that
the Malaysians had made a claim to Pedra Branca is in 1979
in a map, which means 139 years after we exercised
sovereignty and 14 years after Separation. 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? More
specifically, is it their case that they did not 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 nor forgot and suddenly decided in 1979
and, if so, is it a principle of international law that
you can suddenly decide that you have sovereignty over
your neighbour's property?
Answer:
These are questions which should be directed to the
Malaysians. 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"
taken out.
Is it a principle of international law that they can
suddenly, out of the blue, after 130 years, and 40 years
after independence? I do not think you have 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, so can somebody spring
this and claim that they are owners? And they also claim
that they have the right to come and patrol your waters?
In international law, in our view, that proposition is not
tenable.
Let me ask 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. Then 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. You said,
well, instead of coming to blows, just go ahead. Take
legal action.
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 now I am
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, isn''t it?
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, control 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.
Mr Abdul
Khalis: Firstly, I understand that while we operate
a lighthouse at Pedra Branca, we also operate a lighthouse
at Pulau Pisang. While we say that Pedra Branca belongs to
us, we do not have a similar position as regards to Pulau
Pisang. The first question is, what are the differences in
Singapore's position with regards to Pedra Branca as
opposed to Pulau Pisang? Second question: has Malaysia
decided, realised or in any other way taken any steps to
claim against any other island that belong to us besides
Pedra Branca?
Answer:
Let me first say upfront that Pulau Pisang belongs to
Malaysia. We have never disputed Malaysia's sovereignty
over Pulau Pisang. But our MPA, Maritime Port Authority,
however has a right to operate the lighthouse there 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 Johor Sultan and the Straits
Settlement's Government in 1900 and we became successor to
that. So Pulau Pisang, we never contested the sovereignty.
Pedra Branca, we have sovereignty over it. It is
ridiculous to say, as the Malaysians said, that Singapore
can only operate a Lighthouse for Malaysia. I might add
that, in 1968, the Malaysian objected to the flying of our
flag over the lighthouse, Singapore flag, in Pulau Pisang.
They objected to the flag and we took it out. But they
never objected then or later to the flying of the
Singapore flag in 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 it
is important. The very next day, Malaysia's Foreign
Minister publicly denied the claim on Pulau Tekong Kechil
and Foreign Minister Syed Hamid said, Malaysia had
"no wish to create new problems to Singapore by
stating new claims" and that "as far as
Singapore was concerned, the only outstanding territorial
matter with Singapore was over Pedra Branca."
Mr Chiam
See Tong: Dr Tan Cheng Bock has observed that to
the Malaysians, no solution is their solution and also I
believe Lily Neo has alluded to the loose talk of war. Now
the situation of no peace no war is not good for both
sides. There may be an accident and war can happen. In
1914, Members would know that the First World War was just
started by the shooting of one man. So in our case, I
think we should not allow this kind of a situation where
there is no peace no war to exist. In this light, 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?
Answer:
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.
Has the situation on the ground in Pedra Branca improved?
My understanding from my discussion with Dr Tony Tan is
the situation has not improved.
Bilateral
Relations
Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Notwithstanding the fact that we
are developing alternative sources of water such as
NEWater and desalination and we know that today there even
exists equipment that allows us to extract drinking water
even from air and in spite of the fact that we are dealing
with a party that is banned on shifting the goal post
frequently in the negotiations, does the Minister agree
that it is still in the interests of both sides to reach
an amicable solution to the issues and that the successful
conclusion of the Water Agreement is still our aim as such
an agreement, besides being critical to our survival,
serves also to symbolise the inextricably links between
our two countries, and that the issues before us should
not be allowed to hinder other areas of bilateral
cooperation?
Secondly, does the Minister agree that the current climate
of frenzy and agitation that has been whipped up by the
Malaysian media overlooks the larger interests of both
countries and serves only to undermine the efforts to
broaden other areas of bilateral cooperation, and does it
in no way contribute towards enhancing foreign investor's
confidence in the region at a time when we are faced with
many other important challenges, such as economic
competition from North Asia and the threat of terrorism,
all of which requires our joint efforts?
Answer:
As to the first part of Mr Tan Soo Khoon's question, I
think that if it was possible to have any room for further
negotiations and talks, I would agree that let us continue
to talk. That has always been my position. This has always
been the position of Prime Minister Goh and of the
Government. And I hope that I have sufficiently
demonstrated by taking Members through in some detail
through the chronology that we have taken that position
because, if we can have a win-win deal, that is good for
both countries to have a Water Agreement. After all, it
would deal with our situation of future water supply. But
mind you, as Prime Minister Goh said, we must also bear in
mind that, because we do not want the water issue to be a
thorn that bedevils our relationship, we will have to
develop our plans on our own alternative supply of water.
But in response to your specific question, if we can have
a deal, is it not worth it to continue talking? I said,
yes, of course, and that is precisely why we have
continued our discussions. But for the reasons I have
pointed out, they have through the many changes of
positions, finally discontinuing the package and not
wanting to talk about future supply of water till 2059.
That is made it well-nigh impossible.
The second part of your question, the subsidiary question
is all related as to 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, particularly on the water issue as well as on so
many other issues where allegations have been hurled at
us, rather than this state of affairs where accusations
have been hurled at us. It really makes sense for us to
cooperate in many areas and, indeed, there are many areas
which we have cooperation in the past and we continue to
have areas of potential cooperation, whether it is in the
areas of economic cooperation. Both sides are important to
each other for trade and investments, I think Members are
aware of the figures. We also have to cooperate in areas
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. So
there are many areas where really Malaysia and Singapore
could work together to advance our mutual bilateral
interests and work together for the advancement of the
interest of our region.
A/P Ngiam Tee Liang: 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.
Answer:
Of course, both countries would always be mindful of that,
but 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. In fact, only a few days ago
one of our highest awards was bestowed by President Nathan
on the Malaysian Inspector General of Police and I turned
up at the investiture ceremony. And this cooperation will
continue. It has to be so. We are so close to each other,
so much movement of people at the borders that if it 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 like to highlight.
KD Malaya
Mr Sin Boon Ann: Can the Minister comment on the
Malaysian accusation that Singapore has failed to abide by
the agreement which was made at independence, offering the
right of the Malaysian military to maintain facilities in
Singapore?
Answer:
The Member was probably referring to some statements made
that, under the Separation Agreement, they had a 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 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 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.
. . . . .
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS PRESS RELEASE 25 Jan
2003
|
Water Issue: Excerpt of replies by Foreign Ministerto supplementary
questions in Parliament 
