BILATERAL ISSUES WITH MALAYSIA

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin asked the Prime Minister what is the status of the outstanding bilateral issues with Malaysia and whether there has been any progress since the Malaysian elections.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf.

Sir, Members of the House will recall that at our sitting on 17th August 1999, I informed the House that senior officials from both countries have had three rounds of discussions on the package of bilateral issues in 1999. I also informed the House that it is Malaysia's turn to host the next meeting in Kuala Lumpur. The Malaysians have on several occasions indicated that they are aware that the ball is in their court. But they have not yet responded with specific dates.

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether bilateral relation between Singapore and Malaysia is affected by the delay and non-resolution of the outstanding issues. Second, whether this delay and non-resolution has affected ties in terms of sports, arts and culture. We used to have a lot of relationships. Thirdly, the CPF issue. The fact that they are requesting that we return CPF monies belonging to Malaysian workers is a major obstacle in the apparent unwillingness of Malaysia to resolve these bilateral issues. And fourthly, whether we should, in fact, fix a definite time line to resolve these issues. So at least we get some commitment and secure terms to negotiate some of these outstanding issues.

Prof. Jayakumar: First, on the fourth aspect about deadline, maybe I should adopt, as the lawyers say, "mutatis mutandis", everything that Deputy Prime Minister has said about deadlines.

Let me say that various ties, whether sports, cultural and other relationships, have continued. But as Members know, these are very much affected by episodic or cyclical ups and downs in bilateral relations. I would say bilateral relations have on the whole been maintained. But if you look at the list of issues in the package, such as the withdrawal of CPF funds earlier than the legal requirements by West Malaysians, the long-term supply of water to Singapore, the position of KTM land in Singapore, the Singapore Air Forces' use of Malaysian airspace and the location of Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore - if you look at all these issues - obviously these are outstanding bilateral issues and it is in the interest of both countries that they be resolved expeditiously. Now, I cannot speculate why they have not reverted with dates - whether it is because they have been pre-occupied with certain domestic considerations which could be one explanation. But I cannot speculate.

As was mentioned in discussions on the questions arising from CLOB, it was mentioned by Members that Prime Minister has said that he hoped to meet Dr Mahathir after Chinese New Year, and Dr Mahathir is reported to have said that he is agreeable to such a meeting. But when exactly such a meeting will take place I do not know. And I also do not wish to predict the substantive outcome of such a meeting. But I would anticipate that when the two Prime Ministers do meet, one possibility is that they may give certain directions to the officials on this whole question of the package discussion.

As to the Member's specific question on the CPF, which is one of the bilateral issues to be discussed in the package, I think Singapore's position on why we have the legal requirements governing withdrawal of CPF funds by West Malaysians has been made clear by my colleague, Dr Lee Boon Yang, and many others in this House as well as elsewhere. Essentially, the rules have provided for certain withdrawal procedures and we have followed the rules. And the explanations for the existence of the rules have also been explained, and the points have been registered that the regime of withdrawal for West Malaysians is, in fact, in some sense, more advantageous than that for Singaporeans. The West Malaysians can withdraw it, I think, five years earlier than Singaporeans and they do not have to have any minimum sum. But notwithstanding this, we have said that as part of an overall package deal, we are prepared to look at it, and that position continues.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, in this sense, has packaging them together actually helped us resolve these issues more speedily or should we relook at unbundling the package or packing them in slightly smaller parcels? Is there issue overload instead?

Prof. Jayakumar: Let us not forget that these issues on their own can be negotiated and tackled separately and it has gone on for some time prior to the two Prime Ministers' meeting in Hanoi in 1998. It was because the previous approach of treating them separately had not produced results that the two Prime Ministers agreed - Dr Mahathir proposed, and our Prime Minister agreed - that we should try to look at this as a package with officials from both sides.

Let me also stress that some of the issues involved questions of principles and law. And these positions of principle, whether it is on sovereignty or on legal interpretations of existing agreements such as on railway land, have to be maintained by Singapore. So the fact that there is a package discussion and it is taking some time does not in any way affect the legal position of these agreements under the law. And if you recall what I said in this House in 1997 on the legal position on the railway land under the Points of Agreement, Members will recall very clearly that there are clear legal undertakings and responsibilities under these agreements and the time schedule under these agreements is not affected. There are certain things to be performed and undertaken under the agreements and that continue to be our position.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister regarding the withdrawals of CPF funds by Malaysian workers or employees who elect to go back. Is it not the position that a national from any other country is allowed to withdraw his entire savings and leave the country? Why is it different for Malaysians? If the fear is that they may return to work in Singapore again, having taken out their CPF, surely that can be overcome by a requirement - they either return whatever they have withdrawn back into the CPF fund or they be told that they cannot come and work in Singapore anymore. Why are we holding on to their monies?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose not to go into details in repeating whatever has been said in this House. There is a clear question of what is the legal position. And the legal position is being adhered to by Singapore. If he wants a repetition of the answers given in this House, he can file a Question and I am sure Dr Lee Boon Yang would be happy to answer the question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Surely the Minister is aware that merely stating what the law is does not really help.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, the Question is a separate matter and I think it should be directed to the appropriate Minister. Mr Iswaran.