CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION AND QUARANTINE IN SINGAPORE (Malaysian Government's stand and legal arguments)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Malaysian government has given its legal arguments for keeping its customs, immigration and quarantine (CIQ) in Singapore and, if not, whether it has indicated when this will be done.

Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Malaysian government has to date filed the grounds for its stand on the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) issues; and if not, what has our Government done to ensure timely progress on the resolution of the matter.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take both Mr Low Thia Khiang's Question and Mr Simon Tay's Question together as they are related?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Prof. S Jayakumar: Sir, Malaysia has to date not submitted its written legal arguments.

Members will recall that Singapore rejected Malaysia's claim that they had a legal right to operate their Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) at Tanjong Pagar. However, we allowed them three months, until 31st October 1998, to submit written legal arguments to substantiate their claim. Five days before the 31st October deadline expired, Malaysia requested an extension of the deadline by 1 1/2 months. We agreed and accordingly extended the deadline to 15th December 1998. However, Malaysia did not submit their arguments by the 15th December deadline nor did they give us any explanation, even though our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur reminded them on 11th December 1998. On 16th December 1998, after the deadline had expired, Singapore sent a Third Person Note to ask the Malaysian Government for an explanation and to ask when it was submitting its legal arguments.

Subsequently, my Permanent Secretary spoke to his counterpart in the Malaysian Foreign Ministry and informed him that we were awaiting a reply to our Third Person Note of 16th December 1998 and for their explanation why they failed to submit their arguments.

Thereafter, the then Foreign Minister Dato' Seri Abdullah Badawi replied on 26th December 1998, referring to the meeting between the two Prime Ministers in Hanoi on 17th December 1998, where the two Prime Ministers agreed to discuss and seek solutions to all outstanding bilateral issues as a package, including the location of the CIQ. His main point was that this latest agreement between the two Prime Ministers superseded any previous undertaking or understanding at the officials level. Malaysia's understanding was therefore that the question of a deadline should no longer arise. He also mentioned that Malaysian officials would be ready to begin negotiations sometime after Hari Raya Aidilfitri.

I replied on 30th December 1998 to point out that when the two Prime Ministers met in Hanoi on 17th December 1998, Prime Minister Goh had told Prime Minister Mahathir that Singapore's position on the CIQ issue was straightforward, namely, Malaysia would have to recognise Singapore's sovereignty and not claim that it had a legal right to operate its CIQ in Singapore. If so, he was prepared to discuss the next step. Prime Minister Goh added that although there was no legislation allowing Malaysian Immigration to operate in Singapore, he was prepared to discuss the possible location of Malaysia's CIQ facilities in Singapore as part of a package of bilateral issues to be resolved. But first of all, the question whether Malaysia still claims to have a legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar had to be resolved. Indeed, when Prime Minister Goh met the press immediately after the meeting, he told the media that Malaysia should still give Singapore their legal arguments.

In my reply to then Foreign Minister Badawi, we have stressed that any negotiations on the location of the CIQ could proceed only after Singapore's sovereignty over Tanjong Pagar and Woodlands has been acknowledged and not disputed. This is because Malaysia has claimed a legal right for its Customs and Immigration to operate in Singapore at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore rejects this. This is a question of Singapore's sovereignty, just as Malaysian airspace is a question of Malaysia's sovereignty. When Malaysia refused RSAF permission to fly over Malaysia, Singapore acknowledged this sovereignty. We expect them to acknowledge our sovereignty.

We have informed Malaysia that if they do not produce their legal arguments in one month's time, we will assume that they no longer wish to pursue their legal claim to be at Tanjong Pagar.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is important to highlight the legal points in this case or should it not be subsumed under some overall negotiating position because some members of the public do raise this point? Also, may I ask whether the appointment of the new Foreign Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar would have some impact on the resolution of the CIQ and other bilateral issues?

Prof. S Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take the first part of Dr Ong Chit Chung's question, ie, why we need to highlight the legal aspect. It is not so much "highlighting" the legal aspect because Members will recall that it was Malaysia which wanted the CIQ issue to be included in the package of bilateral issues to be resolved, according to the two Prime Ministers' agreement. We agreed to this. But, because Malaysia insisted that it had a legal right for its CIQ to operate in Singapore - as Members will recall the debate we had on 31st July last year - Malaysia has therefore raised a fundamental question of sovereignty.

There really can be no two ways about it. Either Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore are there as a matter of right or they are there because of our leave and consent. If Malaysia's CIQ are in Singapore because of an inherent legal right, then of course it follows that there is no need for any negotiated political settlement because they are there as of legal right. Therefore, it is important, from Singapore's point of view, that the question of Singapore's sovereignty has to be acknowledged. We have told the Malaysians that if they do not submit their legal arguments within a month then we will assume that they no longer maintain that they have a legal right to operate their CIQ in Singapore.

As to the Member's second question about the new Foreign Minister, let me say that I have previously worked with Datuk Seri Syed Hamid when he was Minister of Justice in Malaysia. I in fact had a very good working relationship with him in that capacity and I look forward to working closely with him to resolve outstanding bilateral issues and to strengthen bilateral relations. Members might have read in the media that the new Foreign Minister has in fact spoken quite positively on bilateral relations and has indicated a desire to work towards improving ties. According to media reports, he has said his priority would be Singapore-Malaysia ties. He said that he was optimistic and that it should not be difficult to resolve issues amicably. I welcome his remarks.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what the Government would do if Malaysia continues not to acknowledge the sovereign rights of Singapore over the CIQ issue and at the same time they also fail to submit the legal arguments but want to continue to operate their CIQ here. What would the Government do?

Prof. S Jayakumar: I have always taken the position in this House that we should take things one step at a time. It is not that Foreign Ministries and Foreign Ministers never inquire internally on what to do if certain questions such as those posed by the Member arise. We always have to address "what if" questions. But in bilateral relations, we have to assume that things will develop one step at a time. I would not like to prejudge this issue. I would like to give the Malaysians time to respond to the position I have outlined.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): May I ask the Minister whether it is the stand of the Singapore Government that, prior to the moving of the CIQ to Woodlands, Malaysia was operating its CIQ at Tanjong Pagar simply at the will of the Singapore Government, just a bare licence, or whether there was a legal right for them to operate the CIQ at Tanjong Pagar?

Prof. S Jayakumar: That is precisely the issue. Singapore's position is that Malaysia's operation of CIQ facilities here is not on the basis of a legal right or on the basis of extraterritorial rights. They are here on the basis of leave and consent of the Singapore Government.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): The Minister mentioned a one-month further deadline, after which he presumes Malaysia would not raise the claim again. What is there to prevent Malaysia from raising the claim after this deadline? In the same connection, what is the reassurance that in packaging various issues together, Malaysia would move to the slowest common denominator?

Prof. S Jayakumar: On the second part of the question, if they move to the slowest common denominator, then conclusion of the framework of wider cooperation, which the Prime Minister has talked about several times in this House and to which we have committed, will be that much more time-consuming. But again I would not like to assume that it will proceed on the "slowest common denominator". We have to take the position, as both the Prime Ministers explained to the press, that both want to solve the package as early as possible. They have said that they are prepared to start the discussion on the package at the officials level soon after Hari Raya Aidilfitri. We have said that we welcome that. But, first, the question of the legal issue and the question of sovereignty have to be resolved and put behind us.

In answer to the first part of the Member's question, if that issue is not resolved, obviously we cannot proceed to the package of issues negotiations because it will not be productive. There will always be a question mark over the CIQ issue. Are we negotiating the CIQ issue on the basis of their inherent legal right? Will they claim it in future? If they claim it in future, it will mean that we have not resolved it. So it has to be resolved. It has to be put behind us. That is why this basic legal issue has to be resolved.

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): This being a sovereign issue, which I think is not up for negotiation, would the Minister consider referring this matter to the International Court of Justice?

Prof. S Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, on a technical matter of referring the matter to the International Court of Justice, on this procedural point, it requires two countries to agree to refer a matter to the International Court of Justice. But we have not reached that stage. We will reach that stage only when we see their position. If they insist that they still have a legal right, then, as I mentioned in Parliament on 31st July last year, if they send their legal arguments, we have said that the two Attorneys-General and officials, the legal experts, will sit down and meet first and see whether it can be hammered out and resolved by a meeting of the legal experts. If they cannot resolve the issue, then we have to discuss subsequent steps and settle it by reference to judicial records in Singapore. But these are to prejudge what is going to happen. Let us first see what is the position of Malaysia.