"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."