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."