CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION AND QUARANTINE (CIQ) ISSUE

Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence how the Malaysian Government's decision to terminate various arrangements governing the use of Malaysian airspace by the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) will affect RSAF training and operations and Search and Rescue, and what measures were taken up by the RSAF to deal with this development.

Mr Cyrille Tan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, with the restrictions imposed on the usage of Malaysian airspace, what measures are being considered by the SAF to (i) work around the restrictions; and (ii) improve on their search-and-rescue operations.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: On 17th September, Malaysia informed the Ministry of Defence that it was terminating various agreements and arrangements governing the RSAF's use of Malaysian airspace. Their decision came into effect on 18th September, effectively giving us less than 24 hours' notice. This was a unilateral decision by Malaysia. We were not given prior notification nor consulted.

Malaysia's decision affected the agreements and arrangements covering RSAF flights through South Johor to the South China Sea Training Area; RSAF training within Malaysia's Low Flying Area; RSAF navigational training flights in Peninsular and East Malaysia; RSAF aircraft taking off from Tengah Air Base using South Johor airspace; and combined Search and Rescue operations and exercises.

MINDEF and the SAF plan for all contingencies, and Malaysia's decision has not curtailed the RSAF's training and operations. When the decision was conveyed, the RSAF immediately implemented alternative arrangements. Today the RSAF conducts its training and operational flights with the same frequency and tempo as before. RSAF aircraft proceeding to their training areas no longer transit through Malaysian airspace but take alternative routes. In doing so, we have not compromised on safety. The RSAF has been working closely with CAAS to ensure the proper sequencing of RSAF flights and civil air traffic so that air safety is not compromised. We have also minimised the number of RSAF flights over built-up areas. However, the adjustments in flight paths could mean some inconvenience to those living on both sides of the Johor Straits as more aircraft now have to fly over Singapore's territorial waters in the Straits. In fact, several of the arrangements which Malaysia terminated had been designed to reduce the aircraft noise level.

The RSAF does not depend on any one country for its training needs. The RSAF has established extensive overseas training arrangements. These have provided valuable training areas and also the opportunity to train and exercise with other highly professional air forces. We will continue to look for new training areas in other parts of the world. In addition, we have invested heavily in advanced training simulators. We will continue to conduct more sophisticated training and exercises and make more extensive use of simulators, to ensure that the RSAF's operational and training effectiveness continues to be of the highest standards.

MINDEF would like to clarify some of the misconceptions about the agreements and arrangements covered by Malaysia's action. Firstly, the arrangements did not allow RSAF aircraft a free run of Malaysian airspace. For safety and other reasons, the arrangements set out minimum heights and demarcated areas, which were strictly adhered to by the RSAF. The RSAF also ensured that its aircraft did not fly at certain times because we were sensitive to noise concerns.

Secondly, many of these arrangements were established many years ago, with some dating back to the 1960s. As these are long-established bilateral arrangements, mutually agreed upon, we had expected some consultation or discussion before any action was taken. Especially as over the years the Ministries of Defence and air forces of the two countries have had regular consultations, conducted professionally and for mutual benefit, to make adjustments to the arrangements when necessary so as to take into account such things as aircraft noise and congestion. Instead the decision was conveyed with less than 24 hours' notice. This is despite the fact that the terms of one of the agreements clearly provide for six months' notification for termination.

Thirdly, these agreements and arrangements were established in good faith and for mutual benefit. They were drawn up within a spirit of cooperation and Malaysia also derived some benefits in exchange for the RSAF's use of their airspace. For example, the RMAF was given access to RSAF Operational Flight Trainers and Air Combat Simulator. The RMAF was also allowed to station its personnel at the RSAF's Joint Air Traffic Control Centre to help coordination between the two air traffic control centres.

While Malaysia's action has not affected the RSAF's training and operations, there will be an adverse effect on Search and Rescue (SAR) operations, as we were unfortunately reminded of only a week after Malaysia cancelled the SAR Agreement. This agreement, which is a common one between countries, was based on humanitarian considerations to facilitate SAR operations. In such operations, time is of the essence. How quickly distressed personnel can be located and rescued can mean the difference between life and death. Usually, SAR aircraft will take the shortest, most direct route to the search area.

Under the agreement, the RSAF had in the past rescued both its own pilots as well as Malaysian pilots. For instance, in 1988, the RSAF rendered assistance to the RMAF twice for Search and Rescue and Search and Locate efforts. In the first case, we located the downed pilot at sea, picked him up and sent him to an RMAF airfield. In the second, we located the survivor and directed Malaysian search aircraft to his location. We worked hand-in-hand with the Malaysian authorities on both occasions.

After the British helicopter mishap, the Malaysian Defence Minister asked Singapore to notify Malaysia of planned exercises and to apply for airspace clearance well beforehand for SAR operations during these exercises. SAR operations are by their very nature meant to handle emergencies which by definition cannot be anticipated. And emergencies can happen during training and even routine flights. Furthermore our Air Force, like the Malaysian Air Force and other air forces, carry out flying training and exercises almost daily. That is why countries have standing SAR arrangements, such as the one which the RSAF and RMAF had until 31/2 weeks ago. This is the most practical arrangement, meant to expedite and smoothen the operations and procedures between both sides for humanitarian reasons in order to save lives in an emergency when SAR is required.

Some of the most basic principles of Search and Rescue, which are internationally accepted, are that there should be no delay in search and rescue efforts; that states should extend any possible assistance to search and rescue efforts; and, that states should coordinate their search and rescue efforts. Singapore's approach to SAR has always been based on internationally-accepted practices and universal humanitarian principles. As a responsible member of the international community, we will continue to uphold these principles and practices. This means that we have and will meet the obligation to provide SAR to those in distress in the quickest time possible. It also means that we must continue to maintain the highest readiness for our SAR operations. This is something which we cannot and will not compromise, for lives - whether Singaporean or other nationalities - are at stake. And this is why the RSAF's SAR assets will continue to be ready for deployment at a moment's notice. However, while our SAR assets may be highly trained and prepared for all contingencies, we must recognise that international cooperation is often necessary in SAR operations. We will continue to coordinate our SAR efforts with neighbouring states where necessary. We will also continue to render our utmost assistance to the SAR efforts of neighbouring states, and we hope to get similar cooperation from them when we have to conduct such humanitarian operations.

In the context of the latest developments on the airspace issue, there have also been various allegations of intrusions by Singapore aircraft into Malaysian territory. Such allegations are not new. Only two weeks before the latest allegation on 1st October by Malaysia's Minister of Defence, there had been reports in the Malaysian press quoting allegations by Johor residents of RSAF intrusions. Datuk Syed Hamid himself had come out to say that there was no intrusion. He also pointed out that such news reports were provocative. We noted and we welcome Datuk Syed Hamid's statement that Malaysia and its Ministry of Defence would not react on hearsay and allegations but would investigate the complaints.

Our response to all allegations of intrusions by our aircraft and vessels has always been a simple one. Inform us through official channels and give us the details so that we can conduct a thorough investigation. If we find that our personnel did intrude, we will punish them for we regard this as a very serious matter. But if all we get is an outcry in the media with no evidence provided, then we cannot be expected to pursue the matter further.

Our records show that over the past five years there have been two instances (both in 1996) when the Malaysian Government officially complained about RSAF intrusions. On the first case of an alleged RSAF intrusion, MINDEF conducted thorough investigations and found no evidence to support the claim of an intrusion. We sought more information from Malaysia to help us with our investigations, and we even offered an exchange of information but Malaysia did not respond. In the second case, Malaysia sent a TPN which set out seven alleged instances of intrusions. Our investigations showed that the claim was without basis. In two of the instances the aircraft concerned were not even RSAF aircraft. There was another instance, early this year, when the Malaysian Ministry of Defence made an informal request to MINDEF to check whether some RSAF F-5s had strayed from their flight path in the Low Flying Area. They provided us the necessary details. We conducted a thorough investigation and found that the F-5s had unintentionally deviated from their planned route due to weather and temporal disorientation of the lead pilot. MINDEF conveyed this and our apologies to the Malaysian Ministry of Defence.

There is no reason whatsoever for the RSAF to intrude into Malaysian airspace. In fact, the RSAF had every reason to adhere strictly to the terms and conditions of the various agreements we had with Malaysia for the use of Malaysian airspace, for to do otherwise would have brought an immediate response from the Malaysian Government. The Malaysian authorities would have been carefully scrutinising RSAF flights in Malaysian airspace and would not have hesitated to produce evidence to prove any deviation from the agreements had any such deviation occurred. The fact, that in spite of all the allegations and close scrutiny the detailed information which Singapore requested to carry out investigations was not forthcoming, speaks for itself.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the status of negotiations to resolve the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) issue with the Malaysian Government.

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Members will recall that when I addressed the House on the CIQ issue on 31st July 1998, I stated that Malaysia claimed a legal right for its Customs to remain at Tanjong Pagar. They also argued that despite the absence of any specific legislation, Malaysian Immigration also had a legal basis to operate at Tanjong Pagar railway station. Singapore disagreed but requested Malaysia to forward detailed legal arguments in writing for further study by Singapore's Attorney-General.

The Malaysian Government agreed to present to Singapore within three months its legal arguments to support its legal claim. We have recently reminded the Malaysian Government of its agreement to present its written legal arguments.

The position therefore is that we are currently awaiting receipt of their legal arguments. After our Attorney-General has studied Malaysia's legal arguments, officials from the two Attorney-General's Chambers would then meet to clarify the legal position and the basis of Malaysia's claims.