Malayan Railway Land in Singapore - Another Tribunal ?

Atobe SG

After the recent experience with International Tribunal, the speed in which difficult matters between Malaysia and Singapore can be resolved, another issue concerning the Malayan Railway Land in Singapore is being proposed to be placed for adjudication by an International Tribunal or Arbitration.

Railway land: S'pore wants third party help
KL yet to respond to proposal to settle long-standing dispute amicably before ICJ or through international arbitration

By Laurel Teo

SINGAPORE wants to settle its long-standing dispute with Malaysia over railway land by referring it to an international third party.

It has taken the first step by proposing this in a diplomatic letter, or Third Party Note, to Kuala Lumpur on Sept 26.

'We are awaiting Malaysia's reply,' Foreign Affairs Minister S. Jayakumar told Parliament yesterday.

'The Singapore Government's position is that this issue can be easily and amicably resolved by international adjudication,' he said.

It would like the matter to be settled before either the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or by international arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Prof Jayakumar said the approach would be consistent with its position on settling several other bilateral disagreements.

The dispute over railway land is over a pact called the Points of Agreement (POA), which the two countries signed on Nov 27, 1990. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then Malaysian Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin signed the document.

It sets out, among other things, the terms of development and status of the railway land here. Under it, the Malayan Railway station in Tanjong Pagar will be moved either first to Bukit Timah, or straight to Woodlands.

In exchange, three parcels of railway land - at Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands - would be developed jointly.

'All other railway lands south of Woodlands other than the Tanjong Pagar, Woodlands and Kranji sites would revert to Singapore,' said Prof Jayakumar.

However, Malaysia had not implemented the relocation of the Tanjong Pagar railway station. It also wanted to vary the POA by asking for extra parcels of land not covered by the pact.

The heart of the dispute now is when the POA becomes operative.

Singapore's view is that it came into effect the day it was signed. Malaysia's stand is that it will become operative only when Malaysia decides to relocate the Tanjong Pagar railway station.

In a 1997 letter from then Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi, Malaysia stated that the POA would 'only come into effect if and when KTM should decide to vacate Tanjong Pagar station'.

A chance to overcome the impasse came in 1998, when both sides agreed to resolve the railway land matter as a package, with other outstanding bilateral issues such as water supply and use of Malaysian airspace.

However, Malaysia broke off the package approach last October, saying it wanted to give top priority to resolving the water dispute separately.

Prof Jayakumar's statement yesterday came in reply to a question from MP Ong Chit Chung (Jurong GRC) on the status of the POA.

Said the minister: 'Now that Malaysia has discontinued the package approach, the basis to consider Malaysia's request for variations of the terms of the POA no longer exists.'

The move to seek international adjudication, he said, was 'consistent' with its approach on other bilateral disputes, such as over Pedra Branca, which is before the ICJ, and the land reclamation in Pulau Tekong and Tuas now facing arbitration.

On the water issue, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has advocated the arbitration route. Prof Jayakumar cited two recent statements by him affirming this, including in his budget speech on Sept 12 when he said if disputes could not be settled through negotiations, 'then there is a need for a third party to arbitrate'.

Yesterday, Prof Jayakumar said: 'We share this view, that where negotiations fail to resolve an outstanding issue, we should refer it to third party adjudication or arbitration especially where it turns on a legal issue.'

This was why Singapore was adopting this approach to the POA issue as well, rather than allow it to trouble bilateral relations, he added.

He said: 'It would allow both countries to move ahead in bilateral issues and focus on our many areas of mutual cooperation and interest.'

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,214988,00.html?

kanzer SG

to let matter degenerate to this level is pretty sad...... both sides seem to realise there is no point in talking to each other anymore..... a real low in relationship. by going to a 3rd party, it has set a precedent in settling dispute. it seems that any future dispute between msia and spore will be settle this way.....

but the silver lining is that at least the issues will be settle one way or another...... what price do we need to pay to settle the dispute? by bad mouthing each other? by discrediting each other? we seems to forget that by closing one door, we would be opening another..... for better or worse, we still have to live side by side each other.