NEGOTIATIONS ON OUTSTANDING BILATERAL ISSUES WITH MALAYSIA (Update)

Mr Hawazi Daipi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give an update on the negotiations regarding outstanding bilateral issues with Malaysia.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I last informed this House about Malaysia-Singapore relations during our sitting on 13th March 1998. On that occasion, Members will recall that I ran through the various items mentioned in the Joint Communique issued after our Prime Minister's visit to Kuala Lumpur in February 1998. I told the House that there had been progress in bilateral relations, but I also cautioned that several outstanding issues remained unresolved. This remains the situation.

On Pedra Branca, on 14th April 1998, officials from both sides finalised the text of a Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to Pedra Branca to the International Court of Justice. This is a positive development which brings the Pedra Branca dispute one step closer towards resolution.

However, there has been less progress on other issues such as the long-term supply of water to Singapore and the development of Malayan Railway Land.

On water, the Joint Communique issued in February 1998 contained a general undertaking that Malaysia would continue the supply of water to Singapore beyond the expiry dates of the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. This was to have been confirmed in a formal Water Agreement within sixty days from the issuance of the Joint Communique. However, both sides have not been able to meet the deadline.

What Singapore seeks is not just a general undertaking but a formal, legally binding, Water Agreement which sets out clearly the terms and conditions for the supply of water after the present Water Agreements run out in 2011 and 2061 respectively. This will avoid future disagreements after the present leaderships in both Singapore and Malaysia are no longer around.

There had been several rounds of negotiations before the deadline. But we had not reached agreement on a formal Water Agreement. We will continue discussions with the Malaysians when they are ready.

Sir, the region is in the grips of an economic crisis. Both Singapore and Malaysia are affected. In times of difficulties, both countries should enhance their cooperation and minimize the areas of disagreements. The two Prime Ministers have discussed financial cooperation but no agreement has yet been reached on specific measures of cooperation.

Other issues which have been discussed include the outstanding matters relating to the Points of Agreement (POA) on Malayan Railway Land in Singapore and withdrawal conditions for West Malaysians' CPF savings. Minister Lee Boon Yang told this House on 1st June 1998 that the CPF withdrawal conditions can be settled in the context of a broader cooperation package between Malaysia and Singapore. This remains our position. We have not yet reached agreement on such a broader package of cooperation which would include the long-term supply of water to Singapore. If this can be agreed, there is considerable potential for mutually beneficial cooperation in a wide variety of areas. This would include the development of the Malayan Railway Land at Bukit Timah which is not covered by the Points of Agreement. Members will recall that the Prime Minister made this point when he spoke about the framework of wider cooperation in this House on 5th June 1997.

Sir, at today's sitting, Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu, will move the Second Reading of the Customs (Amendment) Bill. This amendment has to do with the shifting of Singapore's Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities from the railway station at Tanjong Pagar to the new facilities at the train checkpoint in Woodlands on 1st August 1998.

We had informed Malaysia of our intention to move to Woodlands as early as 1989 and repeated on many subsequent occasions. We have also informed Malaysia that once Singapore's CIQ facilities move to Woodlands, Malaysia's CIQ operations could no longer continue in Tanjong Pagar because Malaysia's Customs and Immigration officials would have no legal authority to exercise such functions in Singapore in the absence of their Singapore counterparts. Moreover, they would be clearing rail passengers for entry into Malaysia before they are cleared for exit from Singapore by the Singapore CIQ at Woodlands. This sequence of clearance would not only be illogical and contrary to international practice but could also present other problems such as in crime investigation and prosecution.

In September 1993, Malaysia agreed that they relocate their CIQ facilities to Woodlands together with Singapore. However, in June 1997, one year ago, the Malaysians told us that they had changed their mind and did not wish to co-locate their CIQ facilities with ours at Woodlands after all, thereby rejecting Singapore's offer to move their CIQ to Woodlands. Therefore, the present administrative arrangements which allow Malaysia to exercise CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar will cease after 1st August 1998. The Malaysians were informed of this in July last year and on several subsequent occasions.

Let me say, Sir, that this does not affect the status of the Malayan Railway Land which is subject to the POA. As Members are aware, the Prime Minister and I had briefed the House in June 1997 on the background to the POA. Members will recall it was our decision to relocate our CIQ to Woodlands in 1989 which prompted the negotiations culminating in the POA.

To sum up, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia are bound by a multiplicity of complex ties. Any relationship of such close interdependence is bound to go through different phases. It is only natural that there will be ups and downs. What is important is that we do not lose sight of the central fact of our inter-twined destinies. That was why the Prime Minister went up to Kuala Lumpur in February, and issued a Joint Communique with Dr Mahathir to pursue a "prosper-thy-neighbour" policy.

As I have stated in this House before, after Separation, Malaysia and Singapore have become two different societies, each having its own distinct national character and culture. We compete as well as cooperate to advance our own national interests. This too is only natural, as leaders in both our countries have recognised. Singapore will manage our relationship with Malaysia on the basis of reciprocity and mutual respect for each other's interests. We are committed to forging a long-term relationship of mutual benefit with Malaysia on this basis.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that the Singapore Government will, willy-nilly, move the CIQ operations to Woodlands as from 1st August 1998. Has the Malaysian Government made any response to this decision of the Singapore Government to move notwithstanding their reluctance?

Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member had listened to what I said carefully, he would have noted that it was not a willy-nilly decision. I said that this move was decided, and the Malaysian Government was informed, as early as 1989.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Sir, we have overshot the target by two months to reach an agreement on continued water supply. Can I ask the Minister whether a new target date has been set and when can we expect an agreement to be reached between the two countries?

Prof. Jayakumar: It is true, Sir, that certain target dates - which I would really not say are "target dates", but dates which the two leaders indicated as dates for the officials to try to work out the arrangements on Pedra Branca and water - were set in the Joint Communique. But in international negotiations, Sir, Members will know that we can endeavour to reach agreement by a certain date. But if there are difficulties and, if further negotiations are needed, then obviously we have to press on, in good faith, beyond the deadline. I would not want now to set a clear fixed deadline. What I can say is, as I have mentioned in my main answer, that we will resume the negotiations when the Malaysian Government is ready.

Mr Shriniwas Rai (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister to confirm that, in international practice, checks are normally carried out at the nearest checkpoint and I think Woodlands checkpoint is the most suitable. Members who are not aware of the international practice will be glad to know the Government's position because in most countries it is the nearest point when you enter the country. We have had the Keppel Road checkpoint for a long time and the House will appreciate that it is a move in the right direction. Could I have the Minister's clarification on this point?

Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member is referring to what Dr Richard Hu is going to mention later that the move by Singapore's CIQ to Woodlands is consonant with international practice, the answer is yes. It is also the international practice that the checkpoints of countries are located in the territory of their respective countries.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): May I ask the Minister, given that it took almost four years on the Pedra Branca issue between the agreement in principle between the Prime Ministers and this final agreement by the officials, whether he is satisfied that bilateral negotiations are proceeding at a sufficient pace and, if not, whether as part of the framework of cooperation, both countries might consider an agreement for mediation and peaceful settlement in a more orderly and systematic manner?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am not sure I have fully understood the thrust of the Member's question. I would have thought that the decision by both countries to resolve an outstanding dispute on Pedra Branca is a very good example to other countries of how such difficult issues can be resolved in an amicable and peaceful manner, in this case, by resort to third party judgement, ie, the International Court of Justice. It might have taken time, but in the process that dispute has not affected the other on-going discussions on bilateral issues.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, if I may clarify. I agree with the Minister that it is a good step. But the point is that it took four years. Would it not have been better if the two countries, as part of a broader framework of cooperation, as Prime Minister Goh has asked for, seek a more systematic way of proceeding with mediation and, if mediation is not sufficient, then to have third party settlement on a broader range of issues? For example, some countries ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Tay, can you ask your question?

Mr Simon Tay: That is the question. Basically, should we not have a broader agreement to proceed with mediation and third party settlement on a wider range of issues, rather than issue by issue?

Prof. Jayakumar: Certain issues lend themselves to mediation and third party settlement. Obviously, those issues will be very few. Other issues have to be resolved by negotiations, sometimes protracted negotiations, by the two countries and the two governments themselves.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, according to recent press reports, Singapore motorists have been taken to task by Malaysian authorities for not paying traffic fines there. Will this be a bilateral issue between the two countries?

Prof. Jayakumar: Am I right that the Member is referring to reports in Malaysian newspapers about Singapore motorists not paying up fines and summonses?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I do not think this needs to become a bilateral issue. The position of the Singapore Government is that if our citizens go abroad, to whichever country, we expect them to abide by the laws and regulations of that country. And if indeed the facts are that Singapore motorists have been delinquent and not paid up the fines and traffic summonses, then they will obviously have to face the penalties just as we require foreigners coming to Singapore to observe our laws and face the consequences.

Having said that, let me also say that this is a problem which is not unique just to Malaysia. Singapore has the flip side of the problem also, because I am told that the problem of foreign traffic defaulters not paying up summonses or meeting warrants of arrest in Singapore is also quite a big problem. I am told that there are some 80,000 outstanding traffic summonses, most of which, of course, will be Malaysians.