Did the New Straits Times of Malaysia finally spoke the truth for
the objections raised by the Malaysian Government concerning
Singapore's reclamation works at Tekong and Tuas ?
Interesting read from:
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/columnist/0,1886,16-209044,00.html?
SEPT 10, 2003
Reclamation puzzle? It's all about white
elephants
Chua Lee Hoong
PUZZLED by why Malaysia is taking Singapore to court over
reclamation that's taking place strictly within the latter's
territorial waters? Well, don't be. Malaysia's New Straits Times
made the reason clear in its editorial yesterday.
Commenting that reclamation works around Pulau Tekong would result
in a narrowing of what it calls the Tebrau Straits and Singapore
calls the Johor Straits, it noted: 'Malaysia is acting responsibly
in safeguarding the future of Tanjung Pelepas and Pasir Gudang,
which stand to become white elephants if reclamation
continues.'
And there you have it. Beneath the mumbo jumbo about sedimentation,
damage to the marine environment and preservation of Malaysia's
right of maritime access to its coastline, the crux is simple:
bilateral economic competition.
It's a competition that has become more intense since Malaysia
decided in the late 1990s to develop its Port of Tanjung Pelepas
(PTP) to rival Singapore's PSA Corp.
Malaysia thinks reclamation works at Pulau Tekong will stymie its
development. Pasir Gudang, opposite Singapore's Pasir Ris, is a
feeder port through which a lot of cargo transit, some on their way
west to the PTP, and some north either to Senai Airport or the
inland peninsula.
At present, most cargo vessels approach Pasir Gudang from the east
through Singapore waters south of Pulau Tekong, instead of through
Malaysian waters to the north, as the latter are shallower.
On Aug 27, Business Times also broke the story that the Sembawang
shipyard - a former British base which does mostly repairs now -
will be moving to Tuas. The move is part of SembCorp Marine's
consolidation of ageing shipward facilities now spread between
Jurong and Sembawang.
For Malaysia, however, the impending move must have sent alarm
bells ringing: Once the Sembawang shipyard is closed, Singapore
won't need a deep-water passageway for ships in those straits. It
would have nothing to lose if it decided to build a bridge between
Pulau Tekong and the mainland. Malaysia's Pasir Gudang goose would
be cooked!
Ah, now the penny drops! That is why Malaysia is rushing to replace
its end of the Causeway with a bridge. For no matter how crooked or
unsightly it would be, it would serve one crucial purpose: allow
ships to pass through. A crooked cat is still a cat as long as it
catches mice.
So is this a cat-and-mouse game in which one side is choking off
access and the other scrambling to open new access lines?
Nationalistic Singaporeans with no love for the northern neighbour
would see it that way. But Malaysia would be loath to be the mouse
to the Singapore cat.
For one, they would have been caught napping if so. This is because
reclamation works at Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin were announced in
Parliament as early as January 1992, but Malaysia did not voice
objections until January last year.
In fact, then Malaysian Transport Minister, Dr Ling Liong Sik, told
the Malaysian Parliament in February last year that Singapore's
reclamation works had not affected the navigation line leading to
Pasir Gudang. The Marine Department, he said, had investigated the
matter, and found no impact.
As for Tanjung Pelepas, it's too far away from any reclamation
works to be affected.
To my mind, the port factor aside, there's another reason why
Malaysia would want to refer the reclamation matter to
international arbitration.
It's related to the Pedra Branca case which Singapore and Malaysia
recently referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). When
there are two cases involving the same two countries, what are the
chances of the same country winning both? The law of averages - and
of human nature - would say these are lower than that of both
countries winning a case each.
To be sure, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
(ITLOS), which is hearing the reclamation case, is an entirely
different panel from the ICJ. The ICJ is a 15-member bench while
the ITLOS has 21 members.
The fraternity of distinguished experts in public international law
is, however, a small one. Members of the two panels must be
nominated by member states, and are elected by secret ballot.
Politics has featured often in the history of both panels; as many
judgments have been made on political grounds as on their legal
merits.
How will the reclamation case pan out in court? The merits of the
case are obviously in Singapore's favour; it would take severely
contorted legal logic to argue that reclamation works in Singapore
waters have caused serious prejudice to Malaysia's rights of
maritime passage.
But Malaysia, clearly, is basing its arguments on more than law, at
least to its domestic audience. Editorials in both the Malay and
English press flog the old line about the claims of friendship and
neighbourliness.
Putting it with polish but disingenuity, the New Straits Times
said: '(Singapore) should decide once and for all if civility
should be the order of the day in dealings with Malaysia. Mere lip
service will not do. Like justice, friendship must not only be
maintained but be seen to be accomplished.'
Let the law, and only the law, decide.
The writer is Features Editor of The Straits Times. E-mail: [email protected]
