Singapore Foreign Minister Prof S Jayakumar today (25
Jan 03) comprehensively rebutted Malaysian allegations on the water
issue and other issues. He underscored that the issue goes well
beyond the actual price of water supplied by Malaysia to
Singapore.He also refuted other allegations such as those
concerning Malaysias vacating of the naval base facilities in
Woodlands, the signing of the Special Agreement on Pedra Branca,
the ASEAN+3 Secretariat proposal and the East Asian Economic Caucus
(EAEC).Documents, Correspondence and Diplomatic Notes released to
set out facts
Prof Jayakumar noted that all these allegations had the common
objective of painting Singapore as "insensitive", "arrogant" and
"unneighbourly" in the conduct of its bilateral relations with
Malaysia.
But the most strident allegations by Malaysia were on the water
issue, including claims that Singapore was "selfish",
"profiteering", "legalistic" and "unreasonable". The water issue
was the core problem underlying the endless, vitriolic barrage of
Malaysian allegations. But the water issue was critical to
Singapores survival as a nation, and Singaporeans needed to know
the facts and be able to judge for themselves. He released the
exchanges of correspondences between the leaders of the two
countries, as well as formal diplomatic exchanges concerning this
issue.
He had to do so because "so much misinformation on the water issue
has been put out by Malaysia that it now needs to be countered by
conclusive evidence. These documents will clear the air for
everyone." The documents, in two volumes, are now part of the
official records of Parliament. The documents also include the
texts of various Agreements.The fundamental issue: Sanctity of
Water Agreements and Separation Agreement
The fundamental issue was not the price of water, but how Singapore
was made to pay for any revision. This cannot be done at the will
or dictate of Malaysia. Said Prof Jayakumar: "The 1961 and 1962
Water Agreements are enshrined in the Separation Agreement and
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."
Prof Jayakumar stated: "Let me be clear. It is not a matter of
money
the significance of the water price, to both countries, is
Singapores existence as a sovereign nation separate from Malaysia,
and the sanctity of the most solemn agreements which Singapore and
Malaysia have entered into."
The issue goes well beyond whether Singapore has to pay 45 sen or
60 sen or stick to 3 sen. Singapore will not be impoverished by an
increase of 3 to 45 sen per 1,000 gallons if Malaysia were to
charge that. Neither would Malaysia be enriched
significantly.
He stressed that the two Water Agreements are no ordinary
agreements. They are so vital that they were confirmed and
guaranteed by both Governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement,
also known as the Independence of Singapore Agreement.
"This was registered at the United Nations. Both countries have to
honour the terms of the agreements and the guarantee in the
Separation Agreement. Any breach of the Water Agreements must call
into question the Separation Agreement and can undermine our very
existence." Diplomatic Notes sent to Malaysia
Prof Jayakumar said in early 2002, various statements made by the
Malaysian Government led to Singapore conveying its serious
concerns to the Malaysian Government. A diplomatic note was sent.
Singapore pointed out that "pending a binding agreement on the
overall package of issues, all legal obligations of the existing
Water Agreements and the POA remain in force and are binding on
both Governments".
In the diplomatic note, Singapore also reminded Malaysia that the
Water Agreements are binding legal arrangements duly confirmed and
guaranteed by the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore in the
Separation Agreement, and that the Agreement was "the fundamental
basis of Singapore's existence as an independent sovereign nation",
and that "any variation of the Water Agreements without the consent
of both Governments will be a breach of the Separation Agreement
that cannot be accepted".
Singapore also pointed out that "further negotiations on new
agreements pertaining to the long term supply of water to Singapore
can only proceed on the basis that the agreements already concluded
cannot be altered without the explicit consent of both parties.
Otherwise any new agreements on water can similarly be altered
without consent. This will have grave implications for bilateral
relations".
On 14 March 2002, the Malaysian Government replied that its
"commitment to resolving the issue of water with Singapore in the
context of an agreement on the overall package of issues", and that
"at no time was there a suggestion that the Government of Malaysia
would depart from such a commitment." It said that any suggestion
to the contrary is "misleading and constitutes a gross
misinterpretation of the well known position of the Malaysia
Government."
Singapore, in a diplomatic note dated 25 March 2002, took note of
this commitment and assurances by the Malaysian Government and
reiterated Singapores commitment to reach a mutually beneficial
agreement on the package of outstanding issues.
Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid also reiterated in his
opening statement at the First Ministerial Meeting on 1 July 2002
in Putrajaya that "Malaysia has repeatedly said that it will honour
the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements until their expiry in 2011 and
2061 respectively". Facts on Package show Singapore was not the
unreasonable party
Prof Jayakumar gave a full chronology to show that difficulties
arose because Malaysia repeatedly changed its position, and shifted
their goal posts each time both sides neared an agreement.
Singapore had persevered, accommodating as much as possible, and
never closed the door on negotiations to reach a mutually
beneficial agreement.
Prof Jayakumar strongly refuted allegations that Singapore had been
the unreasonable party. The package of items under negotiations
covered the future supply of water to Singapore for 100 years after
2061; use of Malaysian airspace by RSAF; variations in the terms of
the Points of Agreement, by giving additional 12 parcels of land at
Bukit Timah for joint development; early return of CPF monies
amounting to RM 3 billion to West Malaysians and, later, the
Malaysian proposal to replace the Causeway with a bridge and a
revision of the current water price.
Singapore was prepared to agree to the items which Malaysia wanted,
including a current water price revision, in exchange for Malaysia
agreeing to provide Singapore with a long-term supply of water
beyond 2061, and RSAF use of Malaysian airspace. "These concessions
to Malaysia would have been at a considerable cost to us. They had
to be seen in the context of the overall package deal being
negotiated," he said.
When negotiations on the package deal did not make much progress,
Malaysia suddenly and unilaterally discontinued the package
approach. Singapore was even prepared to go along with the
Malaysian proposal to decouple water supply from the other items
but Malaysia refused to discuss future water supply until 2059, a
mere two years before the expiry of the 1962 Water Agreement. It
was therefore clear that Malaysia had no intention of striking a
deal on future water.How do we go forward?
Malaysian leaders spoke about referring the water issue to
international arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration
(PCA). Later, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid reportedly said the
option of referring the water issue to PCA for arbitration did not
arise. This back-tracking was despite statements by PM Mahathir and
FM Syed Hamid on two different dates that it should be referred to
the PCA.
To overcome the impasse, Singapore is prepared to have recourse to
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Water
Agreements. The provisions in Clauses 21 and 19 of the 1961 and
1962 Water Agreements respectively provide for the settlement of
disputes arising under the Agreements. Those provisions stipulate
that where disputes cannot be resolved, the matter shall be
referred to arbitration "in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of the arbitration law at the time of such dispute
existing in the State of Johore".
Indeed, the Johor State Secretary sent letters of 14 August 2002
seeking to give Notice of price review in accordance with Clause 17
and Clause 14 of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements respectively to
the PUB. As Singapores position was that Malaysia had lost its
right of review, the PUB replied on 9 October 2002 that it did not
accept that the Johor State Government was still entitled to serve
notice to seek a review of the charge of raw water under the two
water Agreements.
The question of whether there was still a right of review, as well
as the quantum of the price revision, can be resolved through legal
process as provided for in the two Water Agreements.
"This is like the way we are resolving Malaysias claim over Pedra
Branca. Both sides will be bound by the decision of the
arbitrators. If in fact Johor has not lost its right to revision by
not exercising it in 1986/87, then the arbitrators award on the
price revision will take effect from the date when Johor gave its
Notice to PUB as provided for in the two Agreements," said Prof
Jayakumar. Loose talk of war was irresponsible and dangerous
Prof Jayakumar said he was concerned about loose talk of war.
"Loose talk of war is irresponsible and dangerous. It whips up
emotions that could become difficult to control. In such an
atmosphere, the Malaysian air force, navy and marine police vessels
have continued to make repeated intrusions into Singapore airspace
and territorial waters off Pedra Branca. Such provocative actions
are not only senseless but dangerous. Senseless because both sides
have agreed to refer the dispute to the International Court of
Justice and such actions cannot affect the decision of the ICJ
The
Malaysian Government would have to bear responsibility for the
consequences."
Prime Minister Mahathir had said Malaysia would respect
international law on territorial disputes and avoid a confrontation
with Singapore on Pedra Branca. This is also Singapores
position.
Prof Jayakumar said it was Singapores intention to have good, not
strained, relations with Malaysia. "There is much that both
countries can gain by working together. Our common interests far
exceed our bilateral differences. We must ensure a firm and level
basis for conducting state-to-state relations," he
said.