| Introduction
Mr Speaker Sir, Members
have asked many questions on the state of our bilateral relations
with Malaysia. They have also asked questions on a number
of allegations made against Singapore on a wide range of current
and 'old' issues, from water, Pedra Branca, the ASEAN+3 Secretariat
to KD Malaya, the former Malaysian naval training base in
Woodlands.
These allegations paint Singapore as "insensitive",
"arrogant" and "unneighbourly" in the conduct of our bilateral
relations with Malaysia. We are also said to be "selfish", "profiteering"
and "legalistic". They now even talk of war, using as a peg
a book that spoke favourably about the SAF. The author, Tim
Huxley, is a British who has no connections with us.
These allegations have no basis whatsoever.
KD Malaya was an old issue. The Malaysians left their naval
training base in Woodlands on their own accord in 1997. When
we revised the rent in 1991, far from forcing them out, we offered
them several options to maintain their base and stay on in Woodlands.
However they chose not to take up our offers and decided in
1992 to relocate their base to Malaysia.
On Pedra Branca, it is not true that we were
reluctant to sign the Special Agreement (SA) to refer the matter
to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In fact, it was
Singapore which proposed referring the issue to the ICJ. Nor
have we carried out construction activities recently. The last
structures were built well over 10 years ago.
Likewise, it is untrue that Singapore was
the only ASEAN country which had problems with the proposal
for a separate ASEAN+3 Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur. Indonesia,
among others, also did not support it. And as for the East Asia
Economic Caucus (EAEC) proposal, it is completely false that
Singapore opposed it. In fact, we were one of the first countries
to come out in support of it.
Mr Speaker Sir, I shall circulate fuller
details on these issues as an Annex to my Statement.
But for this afternoon, I wish to focus on
water, which is the core problem underlying all this endless,
vitriolic barrage. I have to state the facts on this central
issue to show what is the true position. The water issue is
critical to Singapore because it has grave implications for
our survival.
In setting out the facts, I shall be releasing
the correspondence between the leaders of both countries and
the diplomatic exchanges. I will also circulate copies of the
two Water Agreements of 1961 and 1962, plus a supplementary
water agreement in 1990 relating to the building of the Linggiu
dam on the Johor River and the purchase by Singapore of treated
water in excess of the 250 million gallons per day (mgd) from
this river. These are all documents for the record. I have been
reluctant to release these documents despite misrepresentation
of facts from the other side because we hoped for a win-win
outcome. But I have to release them now because this hope is
no longer realistic and so much misinformation on the water
issue has been put out by Malaysia that needs to be rebutted
by conclusive evidence. Despite repeated attempts to clear the
air through various MFA Spokesman’s comments and Parliamentary
statements by me in this House, Malaysian misrepresentations
have not ceased. Recently, there has even been loose talk of
war in some Malaysian circles. We therefore have no choice but
to set the record straight by releasing these documents for
people to judge for themselves the truth of the matter. These
documents will clear the air for everyone, especially Singaporeans
who travel to Malaysia, read their media and talk to their Malaysian
friends. These documents are in two volumes which will be given
to Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, I request that they be part of
the official records of the House.
My statement has three parts. First, it is
to make clear that the fundamental issue for us is not the price
of water as such. The vital issue is not how much we
pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. Malaysia
wants Singapore to pay more for water. But the price cannot
be revised at the will or dictate of Malaysia. The 1961 and
1962 Water Agreements were enshrined in the Separation Agreement
which was registered at the United Nations. They are fundamental
to our very existence as an independent nation. Neither Singapore
nor Malaysia can unilaterally change them. This is the root
of the dispute between us.
During the negotiations on the package of
issues, both sides asked for and offered various concessions.
Singapore agreed to pay more for existing water, but only as
part of a package deal that included the future supply of water.
Malaysia agreed to settle several outstanding bilateral issues
as a package. The documents demonstrate this clearly. However,
in October last year, Malaysia unilaterally decided to take
the water price revision out of the package, to be discussed
and decided on its own.
Second, I will give a full chronology of
the talks on water. This will show that Singapore has been consistent
and forthcoming in the negotiations. The difficulties arose
because Malaysia repeatedly changed its position, and shifted
their goal posts each time we neared an agreement. No sooner
had we agreed to a price for water when they changed their minds
and upped the price. After the two countries had discussed all
the issues as one package for several years at Malaysia’s request,
Malaysia unilaterally and without prior notice abandoned the
package approach, saying that they only wanted to discuss the
current price of water.
Despite all the sudden twists and turns,
we accommodated and persevered, never closing the door on negotiations,
in order to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. The Malaysian
allegations against us are totally unjustified when we were
trying to find an amicable way forward.
Third, I want to stress that it is in the
overwhelming interest of both countries to settle our differences
in accordance with international law, either through the ICJ
or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), or in the case
of the water price revision through the method provided for
in the Water Agreements themselves, i.e. arbitration according
to the laws of Johor. This process of arbitration can determine
what we have not been able to agree on, namely whether Malaysia
has the right to revise the price after a lapse of 16/17 years,
and if so by how much. |
