RELOCATION OF SINGAPORE'S CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION AND QUARANTINE FACILITIES FROM TANJONG PAGAR RAILWAY STATION TO WOODLANDS TRAIN CHECKPOINT

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members are aware that the Malaysian Government has announced that their Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities will remain at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, even though Singapore had told them on many occasions that they could not remain there after Singapore relocates its CIQ to the Woodlands Train Checkpoint (WTCP) tomorrow. Members would have also read the press statement issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday evening, and reported in today's newspapers.

Sir, at our last meeting on 29th June this year, I informed this House that Singapore's CIQ at Tanjong Pagar will be relocated to the new facilities at WTCP on 1st August 1998. I said that we had first informed Malaysia of our intention to move to Woodlands in 1989 and had repeated this on many subsequent occasions. We told them that once Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands, the administrative arrangements for them to exercise CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar would cease.

At that sitting on 29th June, I had also stressed that the relocation of Singapore's CIQ to Woodlands and the cessation of Malaysia's CIQ at Tanjong Pagar did not affect the status of Malayan Railway Land, which is subject to the Points of Agreement (POA). Indeed, this issue of relocation of our CIQ is completely different and separate from the POA and the status of the Malayan Railway Land or the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. The Ministry of Law's press statement of 8th July 1998 repeated this position.

The Malaysian Government's insistence to continue conducting immigration clearance at Tanjong Pagar has serious consequences. They will be doing so without legal authority. If they endorse passports of rail passengers travelling from Singapore to Malaysia, it would be unauthorised and contrary to the proper sequence of immigration clearance. Under Singapore law, this would create irregularities in the passport.

I will therefore explain the full background of the CIQ issue, so that Members will know that the Singapore Government has expended considerable effort and has made many proposals to Malaysia to resolve this issue, in a way which would not disrupt the smooth operation of train services from 1st August 1998. Unfortunately, Sir, these efforts have not been successful.

Our decision to relocate Singapore's CIQ to the Woodlands Checkpoint was not a sudden or surprise move. It goes all the way back to 1989, when we decided on our move of CIQ to Woodlands in order to check the smuggling of drugs, to prevent entry of illegal immigrants as well as to deploy our own manpower more efficiently. In November 1989, as I was then Minister for Home Affairs, I briefed the Malaysian Deputy Minister for Home Affairs, Dato Megat Junid, of our plan to move our CIQ and the rationale for our decision. Slightly more than two years later, I wrote to him again on 1st February 1992 to inform him that, "The Development masterplan for the new Woodlands Checkpoint, which includes clearance facilities for train passengers and cargoes, is now ready." He replied on 3rd March 1992, and said:

"I have passed the information to the Hon. Prime Minister who is also the Minister for Home Affairs Malaysia."

Later, our two Prime Ministers touched on this matter in their correspondence. In a letter of 4th April 1992, Prime Minister Mahathir wrote to PM Goh, and I quote:

"We understand why you would want to have Customs and Immigration checks at Woodlands. In fact, we feel that it would be more convenient for both countries to have the same checkpoint in Woodlands."

On 9th April 1992, Prime Minister Goh replied to Prime Minister Mahathir, and I quote:

"This can be done. I have asked Jayakumar to include facilities for Malaysia's customs and immigration at Woodlands."

Following this agreement between the two Prime Ministers, the Ministry of Home Affairs briefed Malaysian officials in June 1992 on the details of Singapore's plan to relocate its CIQ to the Woodlands Checkpoint. We informed them what facilities could be made available to them if they wished to co-locate their CIQ at Woodlands.

Then on 20th September 1993, the Malaysian Government officially informed Singapore that they had decided to co-locate their CIQ with Singapore's at Woodlands Train Checkpoint. Dato' Halim Ali, then Deputy Secretary-General 1 of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs, and he said:

"I wish to inform you that the Malaysian Government has decided to locate the operation of the Malaysian Immigration and Customs at Woodlands Checkpoint together with Singapore's to facilitate immigration and customs clearance of passengers and goods entering and leaving Malaysia by rail through Woodlands, Singapore."

Sir, Singapore therefore proceeded to plan the construction of the Woodlands Train Checkpoint on the basis that Malaysia's CIQ would co-locate with Singapore's CIQ at Woodlands Train Checkpoint.

Almost four years later, on 11th June 1997, the Malaysian Government wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that it had changed its mind and had decided to retain its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar. The letter was signed by Dato Ghazzali Sheikh, Deputy Secretary-General 1, of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It gave no reasons, although considerable work had been done by Singapore in planning and construction of the Woodlands Train Checkpoint on the basis of co-location. After Malaysia had rejected co-location, Singapore then reconfigured the Woodlands Train Checkpoint building to serve only Singapore's needs.

On 2nd July 1997, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, replied to the Malaysian Government that since Malaysia had rejected Singapore's offer to co-locate its CIQ at Woodlands, once Singapore's CIQ moved to Woodlands their CIQ could not remain at Tanjong Pagar because of two reasons.

Firstly, it will create serious operational problems for both countries.

Secondly, Malaysian officials would be operating without the presence of Singapore officials to lend their authority and powers.

Members will note from what I have said that Malaysia had been given notice more than a year ago that once we moved our CIQ, their CIQ could not stay in Tanjong Pagar. Since Malaysia had rejected Woodlands and we had told them that they could not stay in Tanjong Pagar, this meant they had to relocate their CIQ to their own territory.

On 23rd February 1998, Singapore officials informed Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) at a meeting that Singapore agencies would operate at Woodlands Train Checkpoint from 1st August 1998. KTMB was also requested to be ready to operate from there on 1st August 1998. On 25th March 1998, KTMB confirmed, and I quote, "as far as KTMB was concerned, it was working towards 1st August 1998 to be operationally ready."

On 24th April 1998, Ministry of Home Affairs, Singapore, officially wrote to Dato Ghazzali Sheikh of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform the Malaysian Government that Singapore would commence its CIQ operations in Woodlands from 1st August 1998. In its letter, MHA stated, "In accordance with the letter of 2nd July 1997, (previous year's letter) Malaysia is requested to cease its Immigration and Customs clearance of rail passengers and rail cargo at the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station by 1st August 1998. Malaysia should relocate its rail CIQ operations within its own territory."

On 14th May 1998, Malaysian officials met with their Singapore counterparts to discuss the matter. At this meeting, Dato Ghazzali Sheikh asked Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr Tan Boon Huat, whether the option of co-location at Woodlands Train Checkpoint was still open. Mr Tan reiterated that since Malaysia had rejected co-location in their letter of 2nd July 1997, the offer had lapsed. Furthermore, the Woodlands Checkpoint had since been built without provision for Malaysian CIQ facilities. Mr Tan also explained that Malaysia would have to move its CIQ facilities out of Tanjong Pagar Railway Station by 1st August 1998.

On 10th July 1998, at Malaysia's request, officials from both sides met in Singapore. At this meeting, the Malaysians claimed for the first time that Malaysia had a legal right to retain their customs at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore's representative from the Attorney-General's Chambers disagreed with this legal claim. For Malaysian Immigration, the Malaysians conceded that there was no enabling legislation to allow them to operate in Singapore.

Singapore officials stressed that Malaysia's CIQ could not remain at Tanjong Pagar because there was no legal basis for it to do so. Moreover, this would pose operational difficulties and result in an illogical sequence of passenger clearance, which is not in accordance with international practice. This improper sequence of clearance would cause problems in crime investigation and prosecution and also raise difficult legal issues of proof. Singapore informed the Malaysians that they had to move their CIQ to Johor Baru.

The Malaysian officials did not dispute that the sequence of immigration clearance would be illogical if its immigration operations remained at Tanjong Pagar when Singapore moved to Woodlands. However, they proposed that Malaysia grant conditional immigration clearance in advance at Tanjong Pagar which would not be valid until followed up by a final clearance by Singapore Immigration at Woodlands. Singapore informed them that this suggestion for advance clearance was not practical, as it would not resolve and address the basic issues.

Both sides met again on 17th July 1998. Since Malaysia claimed a legal right for their Customs to remain at Tanjong Pagar, but Singapore did not agree with their claim, we requested Malaysia to forward detailed written legal arguments within three months for further study by the Singapore's Attorney-General. Officials from the two Attorney-Generals' Chambers would then meet to clarify the legal position on the basis of which Malaysia claimed that it has a legal right for its Customs to continue operating in Singapore. As an interim arrangement, Singapore would allow Malaysian customs officers to operate at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, and we would station Singapore officials at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station to lend their authority to Malaysian customs officers.

As regards immigration, Malaysia now also argued that despite the absence of any specific legislation, Malaysian Immigration had a legal basis to operate at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, on the basis of acquiescence and state practice, which was backed by international law.

Singapore disagreed. For Malaysia to locate its immigration control post in Singapore is actually not in compliance with Malaysia's own law. Under Malaysian law, Johor Bahru railway station is gazetted as the immigration control post for persons travelling from Singapore to Malaysia by train, and not Tanjong Pagar Railway Station. Indeed, they could not gazette Tanjong Pagar Railway Station as it is in Singapore territory. In fact, this is confirmed by the endorsement or chop on passports of passengers boarding the train at Tanjong Pagar, which clearly states that the Malaysian Immigration Control Point is in Johor Bahru.

Nevertheless, Singapore agreed that Malaysia could make its case on immigration arrangements in the written arguments that it had agreed to present within three months.

Sir, after claiming the right under law to have their CIQ remain in Tanjong Pagar Railway Station, Malaysia said at the 10th and 17th July 1998 meetings that they would now like to co-locate with Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. Singapore did not agree. We explained that when Malaysia rejected co-location last year on 11th June 1997, Singapore had decided on physical arrangements that made no provision for Malaysia's CIQ. Furthermore, we decided that it was best that the respective CIQ arrangements be regularised in accordance with international practice by each country having its own CIQ in its own territory as is the case for road, air and sea transport and travel between Singapore and Malaysia.

We informed Malaysia at the meeting of 17th July 1998 that if it needed more time to relocate its immigration operations to Johor Bahru, Singapore would, as an interim arrangement, allow Malaysian Immigration to board outgoing trains at Woodlands Checkpoint and clear passengers onboard the train after they had been cleared for exit from Singapore. Our officials also handed over an Aide Memoire explaining this to the Malaysian delegation at the meeting. The Malaysians rejected the option of clearance on the train. However, Datuk Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Secretary-General of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requested for some desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint platform for Malaysian immigration clearance. Our officials did not accede to his request.

Immediately after that meeting on 17th July 1998, Datuk Kadir told my Permanent Secretary BG Tan Chin Tiong in a telephone conversation that it was not practical for Malaysian Immigration officials to conduct checks onboard the trains, as it would mean reducing KTMB's current train schedules by half. Based on our own calculations and experience, this was not true. However, I wanted to resolve this issue. Therefore, I authorised my Permanent Secretary to tell Datuk Kadir that Singapore had agreed to his request for desks at the Woodlands Checkpoint passenger platform for Malaysian Immigration clearance, as an interim arrangement. BG Tan Chin Tiong conveyed this by telephone to Datuk Kadir on 19th July 1998. Datuk Kadir replied that it was good that Singapore had offered to allow Malaysia a few desks for its immigration clearance at Woodlands as this would make Malaysian Immigration more orderly.

Sir, it was clear that we had settled on interim arrangements for both customs and immigration. Singapore had gone to considerable lengths to do so. On 24th July 1998, Singapore's Acting High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur handed over an Aide Memoire and press statement to the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, placing on record these interim arrangements which had been discussed and settled.

On the same day, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press statement, claiming factual inaccuracies in the MHA press statement, and denying that Malaysia had agreed on the interim arrangements described by Singapore. It denied asking for desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint passenger platform for Malaysian Immigration. It claimed that Malaysia had requested for space inside the Woodlands Checkpoint building. Moreover, the Undersecretary (Southeast Asia and South Pacific) at the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Arshad Hussain, was quoted in Bernama as saying:

"All we are asking for is co-location inside the Woodlands Train checkpoint as [in] the original plan."

On 25th July 1998, MHA issued a press statement expressing puzzlement and surprise that Malaysia had disputed the MHA press statement of 24th July 1998. In the statement, MHA said that Singapore had worked on the basis that both Malaysia and Singapore wanted smooth train operations when Singapore moves its CIQ to Woodlands Checkpoint on 1st August 1998. That was why Singapore had responded positively to Datuk Kadir's request for a few desks on the passenger platform at Woodlands Checkpoint for Malaysian immigration clearance. Singapore therefore did not understand why Malaysia now claimed that there was no agreement on interim arrangements for Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore.

Sir, I subsequently met Malaysian Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi during the 31st ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila on 25th July 1998. Minister Badawi and I had worked closely before whenever we had bilateral problems. He requested a meeting to see if we could resolve the impasse. Minister Abdullah Badawi's main concern was that the interim arrangements offered to Malaysian Immigration should be "functional and presentable". He agreed with me that Malaysian Immigration could not remain at Tanjong Pagar after 31st July 1998, because the sequence of immigration clearance would be illogical and contrary to international practice. He also agreed that there would be no co-location of Malaysian Immigration with Singapore Immigration inside the building at Woodlands Checkpoint. On this basis, we agreed to instruct our immigration officials to meet again as soon as possible to work out interim arrangements for Malaysian Immigration at Woodlands Checkpoint which would be functional and presentable. Following my meeting with Minister Badawi, I issued a short press statement summarising these agreed points.

Singapore immediately followed up by inviting Malaysian Immigration officials to a meeting in Singapore on 28th July 1998. The Malaysian officials agreed to come down for this meeting.

However, the evening before the scheduled meeting, Prime Minister Mahathir who was then in Namibia, was quoted in Bernama, saying that Malaysia would not shift its CIQ facilities in Singapore from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands. He was reported to have said to accompanying Malaysian journalists, and I quote: "That's our stand and we will stick to it."

Sir, the Malaysian delegation which attended the meeting on 28th July 1998 did not do so with an open mind to resolve this issue conclusively. The talks broke down because the Malaysian officials insisted that Malaysian Immigration should be located within our Woodlands Checkpoint building, notwithstanding the understanding between Minister Abdullah Badawi and myself in Manila. The officials said that otherwise, Malaysian Immigration would remain at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore officials repeatedly assured them that functional and very presentable interim arrangements would be set up for Malaysian Immigration at the Woodlands Checkpoint. But the Malaysian delegation refused to consider them.

In fact, Sir, Singapore even proposed that the immigration booths on the platform could be air-conditioned to make them more comfortable. The facilities would be even more presentable and functional than those at the Tanjong Pagar platform. The Woodlands Checkpoint platform is 10 metres wide, wider than Tanjong Pagar which is only 8 metres, but which currently accommodates both Malaysian and Singapore Immigration clearance facilities without difficulty at Tanjong Pagar. The Malaysian delegation, however, insisted that this was unsatisfactory, but gave no reasons for this even though they are already operating on the platform at Tanjong Pagar.

The Singapore delegation reminded the Malaysians that if the Malaysian Immigration remained at Tanjong Pagar after Singapore Immigration moves to the Woodlands Checkpoint on 1st August 1998, the sequence of immigration clearance for rail passengers departing Singapore would be illogical and contrary to international practice. Malaysian Immigration would cease to have any authority to clear immigration at Tanjong Pagar once Singapore Immigration is no longer at Tanjong Pagar to lend them their authority. The Malaysian delegation, however, refused to consider our position. Instead they abruptly ended the meeting and left.

To conclude, Sir, let me sum up by expressing my regret that the extended discussions with Malaysia to work out interim arrangements for the Malaysian CIQ have broken down. As Members can see, Singapore had gone to considerable lengths and made a series of proposals and compromises to resolve the issue. However, Malaysia has changed its position again and again. First, in1993 they said they wanted to co-locate with us in Woodlands. Then in 1997 they abruptly changed their mind, rejected co-location and said they would stay in Tanjong Pagar. Then in talks between officials this year, they claimed they had a legal right for their CIQ to stay in Tanjong Pagar. Then after claiming this legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar, they said that they wanted to go back to the "original plan" to co-locate at Woodlands. Then finally, Prime Minister Mahathir said they would stay in Tanjong Pagar.

Members will note that we have been consistent and tried to be reasonable and helpful at every stage of our dealings with the Malaysians on this issue and we have made the following concessions:

First, after they rejected co-location, our position was that their CIQ should be located in Malaysian territory.

They then claimed legal rights to stay at Tanjong Pagar. We were prepared to hear their legal arguments, and pending resolution of the legal issue we agreed as an interim arrangement to let their Customs operate temporarily at Tanjong Pagar and we would post our officers there to lend them legal authority

As regards clearance by their Immigration, when they refused to relocate to Johor Bahru and claimed a legal right to operate in Singapore, we offered to allow their Immigration officers to board trains at Woodlands Checkpoint and clear passengers on the trains en route to Johor Bahru, as an interim measure.

When Malaysia argued that this did not give Malaysian Immigration enough time to clear all passengers, we offered Malaysian Immigration the option of clearing passengers on board stationary trains at Woodlands Checkpoint but after Singapore had cleared passengers for exit.

Malaysia said this was unorderly, might upset train schedules, and asked for desks on the Woodlands Checkpoint platform. We agreed.

They then expressed the concern that the desks were not presentable. So we offered to assist Malaysian Immigration by setting up airconditioned booths at the Woodlands Checkpoint. But at the final meeting on 28th July, they insisted on location inside the main building, otherwise they would remain at Tanjong Pagar.

Yesterday, Sir, our High Commissioner in Malaysia presented an Aide Memoire to the Malaysian Foreign Ministry in Kuala Lumpur stated, inter alia, the following, and I quote:

"Rail passengers will face following difficulties if Malaysian Immigration insists on executing their duties at Tanjong Pagar Railway Station after 31st July 1998 without any legal authority:

(a) Malaysian Immigration officers performing immigration functions at Tanjong Pagar will be acting without any legal authority. All endorsements made by them on Singapore passports will be unauthorised and improper. The sequence of immigration clearance will also be contrary to international practice. Accordingly, questions of serious irregularity in the passport will arise under Singapore law.

(b) As the sequence of immigration clearance is illogical and contrary to international practice, foreign national passengers exiting from Singapore with such unauthorised and improper endorsements on their passports may face difficulties at Singapore Immigration checkpoints. Travellers who enter Singapore by rail from Johor Bahru will not be affected as they are following the correct order of immigration clearance, exit granted by Malaysian Immigration in Johor and entry granted by Singapore Immigration in Woodlands."

Malaysian Immigration's insistence to clear entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar railway station after 31st July before Singapore has cleared them for exit from Singapore will cause inconvenience to rail passengers. The interim arrangements that Singapore had offered for Malaysian Immigration in Singapore's Aide Memoire of 24th July 1998 after discussions with both Foreign Ministers in Manila would have avoided this. Unfortunately, Malaysian officials have rejected these interim arrangements and abruptly ended the 28th July 1998 meeting.

Sir, Malaysia has not informed Singapore exactly how it intends to proceed after 31st July 1998, after rejecting Singapore's proposal of airconditioned counters on the Woodlands Train Checkpoint and insisting that their Immigration will conduct clearance at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore regrets that it has to issue a travel advisory to inform rail passengers of the inconvenience and difficulties that they will face if Immigration officials persist in granting passengers entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar before Singapore clears them for exit at Woodlands.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that the continued positioning of Malaysian Immigration officials at Tanjong Pagar is going to be a legal and sovereign issue. Is there any plan for Singapore to stop them from operating at Tanjong Pagar as from tomorrow, Sir?

The second question is, going by press reports of the last few days, Malaysian politicians have been saying that this is an excuse to force Malaysia out of Tanjong Pagar and that Singapore will take over ownership of the land at Tanjong Pagar. In other words, if the Malaysians should vacate Tanjong Pagar, Singapore will use that as an excuse to take over the land at Tanjong Pagar.

The last question is, operationally, as from tomorrow, when passengers board at Tanjong Pagar and reach our Woodlands Checkpoint, what action would the Minister take in view of the fact that their passports would now not be regularised?

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the far-fetched Malaysian legal position and claims would in fact mean that it is undermining our own sovereignty as a country and that the Malaysians are taking for granted our goodwill and patience on this matter. I also want to ask the Minister what would be the Government's position if a question is asked whether the Woodlands Checkpoint building is spacious and large enough and whether some space could still be found for Malaysian Immigration officers inside the building.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, I would like to know what are the difficulties that the Malaysians are facing with regard to locating their CIQ within their own territory. While these talks are going on and they realise that the talks may break down, have they made any preparation on their CIQ arrangements or use their own platform within their own territory so that they can cater for an alternative in case co-location in Singapore cannot be agreed upon?

The second question, Sir, is whether there has been any request from the Malaysians, since the talks have been reaching a difficult stage, asking for deferment on our part on the implementation of the movement of CIQ from tomorrow. And if Singapore were to be given this request, will it be possible for us to accommodate, given that we already have plans to move our own CIQ to Woodlands?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar): Sir, in today's Straits Times, it is reported that, "Singapore should not decide unilaterally on the relocation of CIQ facilities from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands." It was mentioned by UMNO Vice-President, Dato Sri Najib Tun Razak. I take it that Dato Sri Najib had said that we should not move to Woodlands. In other words, he is actually questioning why we should move to Woodlands from Tanjong Pagar, thereby creating all these troubles and issues. May I have the Minister's comments, please?

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, just now the Minister mentioned that the legal right that Malaysia has towards the Tanjong Pagar land is accepted. If that is the case, there may be a view taken as to why, if Malaysia has a legal right over the Tanjong Pagar land, it cannot operate its CIQ there, as it is supposed to have the right to do so. Can the Minister explain why therefore Singapore authority is needed in that particular situation?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Two clarifications, Sir. First, why was the Malaysian rail CIQ allowed to operate at Tanjong Pagar station in the first place, since we are an independent nation? Secondly, as an independent nation, why should we allow another country's CIQ, that is, Malaysia, to locate at Woodlands, which is our land and the Government has agreed earlier on? Why do we not ask the Malaysians to locate their CIQ at Johor Bahru train station? They have a train station there.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the suggestion by Mr Low. My question to the Minister is this. Why did we first of all agree to allow their CIQ in Woodlands when there was an agreement to move in fact in September 1993? Then there was a change of heart. What the Malaysian PM is asserting is tantamount to extra-territorial rights. Singapore is a sovereign nation and we cannot allow that. I would like to have this clarification. I would like the Singapore Government to convey to the Malaysian government that they cannot have any extra-territorial rights in our country.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister what is the title that the KTM has to the land in Tanjong Pagar?

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Two questions, Sir. The first is: what is the difference between operating on the platform of Woodlands and operating within the Woodlands Checkpoint? And the second point is, he mentioned about a travel advisory. What exactly would that mean for those holding Singapore passports and Malaysian passports, respectively?

Dr Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, PM Mahathir is reported to have said that for agreements between Malaysia and Singapore to be binding, they have to be ratified by his Cabinet and Parliament. This cannot be right because if Ministers and senior civil servants cannot bind their own country to agreements signed by them, the question is how, in international law, should binding agreements be signed. The second question is, Sir, Malaysia is reported to have argued that there is an agreement to allow them to have CIQ at Tanjong Pagar and that this document has not been terminated. Is this correct, Sir?

Mr Chuang Shaw Peng (Nominated Member): Sir, I do not understand why Malaysia claims that they have a right to stay in Tanjong Pagar as the piece of land belongs to them. If their argument is correct, it means that if Singapore Government owns a piece of land in Johor Bahru, we can move our CIQ to Johor Bahru too.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): I would like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for the Government to gazette the Woodlands Train Checkpoint as mandatory for all train passengers to clear their immigration at that point.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, two issues. One is regarding non-Malaysians entering Singapore by train. Basically, what it means is that they will be entering Singapore illegally since they have not left Malaysia. So the travel advisory is for Singapore citizens. How do we advise foreigners who are entering Singapore illegally? The second issue is that he mentioned that the CIQ facilities in Tanjong Pagar would be illegal from tomorrow. So will we have any enforcement action to stop them from performing their duties? Are we going to arrest them for doing their duties illegally in Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, several questions were asked. Let me answer them, perhaps not in the order that was asked. I think Prof. Chin Tet Yung and one other MP asked about the status of the land, whether it is their land and what rights ensue from it. And I believe Mr Jeyaretnam also asked about the title. I am advised by the Attorney-General that Malaysia has the legal title to the railway land. It operates a railway service on the land through KTM. Under the terms of the leases, the railway land is not intended to be used as a CIQ station. Malaysia in fact does not claim and has no sovereignty over the railway land. It has legal title to the land in the same way as an individual has title to a land. However, customs, immigration and quarantine functions are State functions which, under international practice, have to be carried out only by a State in the territory where it has sovereignty. One State may not carry out such functions in the territory of another State without the consent of the latter as it infringes the sovereign rights of the State, and I believe, two Members, Mr Rai and Low Thia Khiang, alluded to that.

The distinction between railway operations on the one hand and CIQ functions is that the railway function is not an essential or inherent State function. It is a facilitative service. It is not an intrusive function. CIQ functions are by their very nature State functions which can only be carried out in the territory in which the State has sovereign rights or in the territory of another State if it is done by the consent of the latter. To argue that Malaysia may perform CIQ functions at Tanjong Pagar railway station because it provides a railway service is actually like arguing that any international airline is entitled to perform CIQ operations at any international airport other than its own home port, because it provides an airline service. Obviously, this cannot be so.

Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Chng Hee Kok asked whether this is an attempt on Singapore's part to force them to move out of their Tanjong Pagar station and for the Singapore Government to take back the land. My answer to that is that it is completely incorrect. This is because, as I have said in Parliament on several occasions, last year as well as again this year on 29th June, the CIQ issue does not in any way affect the status of the Malayan Railway land or the status of their railway station. These matters are subject to the Points of Agreement (POA). This was also reiterated in the Ministry of Law's statement of 8th July when the Ministry of Law stressed that the relocation of Malaysian CIQ operations from Tanjong Pagar is a completely different and separate issue from the POA, and separate from the status of the Malayan Railway land in Singapore or the railway station in Tanjong Pagar. What happens to the railway land at Tanjong Pagar is set out in the POA which I went into detail last year in this House. The POA sets out the agreement for the redevelopment of Tanjong Pagar land on a 60:40 basis, 60% to the Malaysian government. The terms of the POA bind Singapore because it is a binding agreement. On the 17th July meeting between the officials, in fact, the Malaysian officials told Singapore that they understood clearly that the CIQ and the POA are different issues. Therefore, because the CIQ issue is a very different matter, there is no question of Singapore taking Tanjong Pagar land back as that matter is covered by the POA.

Some Members have asked: why do we not take action to prevent the Malaysian immigration from being physically present at Tanjong Pagar? I think Members will note that we have taken a reasonable and consistent approach to this matter. They have claimed a legal right for both customs and immigration. On immigration, there is no specific enabling legislation. They claim that they have a right based on acquiescence backed by international law. We have said that we will give them three months to present their legal arguments, and we have no objection to them being physically present at Tanjong Pagar, but the important point is this. Even if they can establish such a legal right which we dispute, it does not follow that they have a right to clear people for entry into Malaysia at Tanjong Pagar before such people have been properly cleared by Singapore Immigration for exit from Singapore.

Several Members have asked about the question of locating outside the platform, inside the building, and so on. Let me answer by saying, first, that they had rejected co-location in 1997. After they rejected co-location in 1997, MHA reconfigured it for Singapore's own use. But while we sort out their legal claim, what we really want to put in place are interim or temporary facilities to ensure smooth functioning on 1st August. In fact, as I said, the facilities we are prepared to cater on the platform will be far more presentable and functional than what they have at Tanjong Pagar station. In fact, we even suggested to them that there could be air-conditioned booths on the platform. But why not inside our building? Apart from it being configured for our own use only, the fact is that they have changed their minds so often on the CIQ issue, how can we be sure that once they are inside, they would not claim that we have agreed to co-location and claim the right to stay permanently. We, therefore, think that it is best that Malaysian immigration be at the platform at Woodlands Checkpoint so that there can be no doubt that these are interim arrangements for three months during which they must show that they have a legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar. Therefore, it is best for both sides to avoid such misunderstanding and any future new problems by their moving inside Woodlands Checkpoint and not moving out later, claiming that this has become a legal right, as they claim that they have a legal right to Tanjong Pagar.

Questions were asked: why can they not shift to Johor Bahru? What are the insurmountable obstacles? I think this question should actually be asked of the Malaysians. We have asked the Malaysians. We have not got any answer because the station is there. They are using the station for checking of incoming passengers. Yesterday's press statement and as I have said today, in fact, Johor Bahru railway station is gazetted under their law as the control post for immigration for passengers going to Johor Bahru. It is under their law. So I am afraid I am unable to give an answer to that.

Has there been any request to defer the implementation from 1st August? There has not been such a request. But how will it be possible for us to consider such a deferment when we have given them such ample notice?

Mr Low Thia Khiang has hit the nail on the head when he asked that as a sovereign nation, why can they not operate in Johor Bahru. Somebody else asked whether is it not a violation of sovereignty to insist to operate in Singapore. I have answered the question when I spoke about the nature of the land. The basic principle is: these are State functions which, if you insist on exercising in the territory of another country, it must be on the basis of consent. That is the cardinal principle in international practice and in international law.

Dr Toh See Kiat asked about agreements being ratified and so on. I think he is referring to the Points of Agreement, whether the statement that agreements are not agreements until and unless they have been ratified by Cabinet and Parliament. Or did I misunderstand him?

Dr Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Malaysians refer both to the Points of Agreement and the exchange of letters between the Secretary-General and the Permanent Secretary that they do not count.

Prof. Jayakumar: It is not altogether clear to us when the statement was made that agreements and documents signed, other than by Heads of States, are not binding, it is not clear that reference is to agreements other than the POA. But whatever the case may be, these are questions of law and there is a proper way to resolve these issues. As Members know, despite our initial position that they must move, when they claim a legal right, we said, "All right, let us sit down, exchange the legal arguments, sort out between the two Attorneys-General".

On the POA, I have already said in Parliament on a previous occasion that there is a divergence of legal views on this. The Malaysians have taken the view that the POA is operative when they decide that they wish to vacate Tanjong Pagar. We have taken the view, and we think we are right in law, that the POA became operational on the day it was signed by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of the Singapore Government and Finance Minister, Mr Daim Zainudin, signing clearly on behalf of the Government of Malaysia. But since there is this divergence of view, we have proposed that this legal dispute be referred to arbitration or the International Court of Justice, and Members would have read that the come back to that is that there is no need to go to the International Court of Justice.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my question on how the Malaysians were allowed to operate at Tanjong Pagar in the first place.

Prof. Jayakumar: The short answer to that is that this goes back to some years back. We allowed them to operate when they made a request, but there is one very significant point which all of us must know, that when we allowed them to operate, our authorities were present at Tanjong Pagar. In other words, we lent them legal authority. We allowed them to be there so long as we were co-located with them. And because we were co-located with them, our Customs officers and our Immigration officers were there to lend them legal authority. Because they have no legal authority to exercise functions of arrest and so on in Singapore.

Number two. The logical sequence was not a problem. Passengers who were to board a train had to clear Singapore Immigration first and then clear Malaysian Immigration. So those are the two main reasons why we have permitted and allowed the state of affairs. But once we move to Woodlands, (a) they do not have the legal authority, and (b) the logical sequence will be totally contrary to international practice.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, the Minister has not answered my question. Let me rephrase the question. As from tomorrow, will Singaporeans boarding at Tanjong Pagar infringe any Singapore law?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the precise answer to the question cannot be given today because we do not know what exactly the Malaysian immigration are going to do at Tanjong Pagar. They have not told us how they intend to do or whatever they are going to do at Tanjong Pagar. And until we know that, we are unable to determine what exactly is going to happen to the passengers or to the passports of the passengers. That is why we have said yesterday that obviously because the logical sequence is completely askew, passengers may face difficulties. What exactly are these difficulties they will have to be determined only after tomorrow.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, the Minister has answered my question. But I am just wondering and this is a very practical question. On 1st August, a train leaves Johor Bahru and it comes all the way to Tanjong Pagar. The passengers must seek clearance from the Malaysian authorities. They cannot leave Tanjong Pagar. So they have got to take the train back to Woodlands, get clearance from the Singapore Immigration and then they can leave. That is what I understand, or do they have to stop at Woodlands?

Prof. Jayakumar: I have already said that for passengers coming in from Malaysia and Johor Bahru into Singapore, we do not envisage any problems because the logical sequence would be complied with, namely, clearance for exit in Malaysia, Johor Baru, and clearance for entry at Woodlands in Singapore.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: That means they must stop at Woodlands when they come in.

Prof. Jayakumar: Of course, yes.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we relocate the CIQ to Woodlands tomorrow, does it mean that we are withdrawing the recognition of extra-territorial rights on the part of the Malaysian Government to operate their CIQ facilities in Singapore? If we do withdraw the recognition of these rights, does it therefore mean that they are operating illegally in Singapore? And if they are operating illegally in Singapore, what action will the Government be taking in respect of the illegal operations?

Prof. Jayakumar: I thought I have answered that question. In my speech, I have already said that if they were to do certain things, it would not be authorised and would be improper. But in answer to one other question, I said that because we have agreed to consider the legal arguments, and given the period of three months, it is not a question of taking action against their presence in Tanjong Pagar but, more importantly, a question as to what exactly they are going to do. Will it result in an insistence on clearing passengers at Woodlands for entry into Malaysia when they have not got out of Singapore? In other words, the passengers are still in Singapore when they are said to have entered Malaysia.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I do not understand. The question was, if they decide to do that, which is not legal, are we going to stop them? Are we going to arrest them for doing so?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, the question of gazetting is to insist that train passengers must stop at Woodlands Checkpoint for immigration clearance, and if they do not, they would therefore be violating our law.

Prof. Jayakumar: That gazette notification has already been made.

On Mr Inderjit Singh's question, I think we should not jump the gun, pre-judge and pre-determine exactly all the series of measures. Let us take things one step at a time, which is exactly what we have been doing.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask, by way of clarification, because it is still not clear to me from the Minister's answer to my question. He says the Attorney-General says KTM has a legal title. What is the title? Is it freehold or leasehold? May we know what the title is?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have all the details here. There are several leases, and it is quite a complicated issue. If Mr Jeyaretnam is interested, I could give a more detailed answer subsequently on the exact network of various leases concerning different parts of the land. There are many different leases concerning different parts.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Sir, in view of the uncertainty and confusion over this matter, and the risk that Singaporeans may be caught violating Singapore laws or Malaysian laws, could we advise Singaporeans to avoid taking KTM?

Prof. Jayakumar: An important point that I have made today is that we would not know what is happening tomorrow. And because we do not know what is happening tomorrow, we cannot say with certainty under what kind of circumstances would any Singaporean be violating the law tomorrow. So I think we will have to wait and see.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, further to Mr Jeyaretnam's question, would the Minister confirm that the title is a leasehold title and not a freehold title of the various lands that the KTM holds in Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: I would give the details at a subsequent sitting if one of the Members were to file a Question. Rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer, I will give a considered answer which gives all the information concerning the different parcels of land.

Dr Toh See Kiat: Sir, I wish to follow up on Dr Tan's practical question about trains stopping at Woodlands. Supposing tomorrow the train at Woodlands comes through and refuses to stop or refuses to let people off, would there be a danger of an international incident?

Prof. Jayakumar: As a Foreign Minister, I do not "suppose" too many things publicly.