BILATERAL ISSUES WITH MALAYSIA

Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Prime Minister if he will give an update on the on-going talks with Malaysia on the various bilateral issues currently under discussion.

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, I may start by recalling that after Senior Minister Lee's visit to KL in September 2001, he wrote to Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir to set out the areas of agreement and issues which had to be resolved.

On 18th October 2001, Dr Mahathir replied to Senior Minister indicating, among other things, that Malaysia might end the KTM train service in Johor Baru and was re-considering its proposal to build an undersea rail tunnel linking Johor and Singapore and a bridge to replace the Causeway. As this was a departure from their earlier discussion in Kuala Lumpur, Senior Minister Lee wrote to Dr Mahathir on 10th December 2001 to seek clarification. We requested Malaysia to set out its position on the various issues so that there would be a clear framework for the officials, led by the two Foreign Ministers, to meet and discuss the details.

On 4th March 2002, Dr Mahathir replied to Senior Minister Lee enclosing Malaysia's latest proposals on the various issues, including the price of water. Some of these proposals were completely new and different from what had been discussed during the meetings between Senior Minister Lee and Dr Mahathir and in previous correspondence. Senior Minister Lee replied on 11th March 2002 that Singapore needed some time to study the new Malaysian proposals and their implications.

On 11th April 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong wrote to Dr Mahathir to set out Singapore's responses to the Malaysian proposals. The next step would be for the officials, led by the two Foreign Ministers, to meet in Kuala Lumpur at a mutually agreed date to discuss the details. I have written to my counterpart Foreign Minister Syed Hamid proposing a set of dates for this meeting. I am awaiting his reply.

As I said in Parliament last September, that is, the previous Parliament, Singapore believes that reaching an agreement with Malaysia on the package of issues would be mutually beneficial to both countries. We are committed to forging a long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect and sovereign equality to realise the full potential in our bilateral relationship. While I cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations, which I believe will begin soon, let me state that Singapore will continue to take a constructive approach with the aim of finding a `win-win' solution to these bilateral issues.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is possible for him to disclose some main details of the contents of the counter-offer from Malaysia, and also whether it is possible for us to know about Singapore's position, because I think the public is interested in this matter. And if it is not possible, then at least he could let us know what kind of tack we intend to take with regard to Malaysia's request. Because we understand that the offer of price for water is exorbitant.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the desire of the Member to obtain the details. But, at the same time, I am sure the Member will appreciate that I would not be able to disclose at this stage the details of those proposals and our response, in that the nature of negotiations, I think, it is premature for us to divulge the details when the first round of discussions has not yet taken place.

As to the broad approach, let me say that Singapore will naturally want to advance our interest. We have heard the Prime Minister speak in this Chamber of the position we will take on water, so that we will increasingly distance ourselves away from dependence on water and rely on alternative sources. The issue now is not on broad principles any more. Both sides have to get down to details. And on water, for example, we have to get down on details, such as the amount, the quantum, the mix between raw and treated water, and on pricing. But these will have to be sorted out together with a host of other issues when we first meet.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): May I ask the Minister, with this wavering of decisions by the Malaysian side, will this be the last time that these changes will stop? We have to end these changes so that we can come down to some serious discussions and settle these issues.

Prof. Jayakumar: It will not be possible for me to give a guarantee that there will not be further changes in their approach or changes in their proposals. But as Foreign Ministers, I hope Minister Syed Hamid and I will be able, after so many years, to get down to brass tacks at our first meeting, together with our officials.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Can the Minister give us an update on the progress of the alternative search for water source?

Prof. Jayakumar: I thought the Prime Minister had already sketched in broad outlines our approach in moving towards developing alternative sources, both in terms of NEWater and desalination. As Foreign Minister, I do not have the details of this, but if he were to file a Question or use the opportunity during the Committee of Supply to direct his request to the appropriate Minister, which will be the Minister for the Environment, I am sure he will get a fuller answer.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Sir, I want to ask about water as well, but in a different context. Since the Prime Minister has mentioned that Singapore intends to be self-sufficient in water, especially with NEWater and other water supplies, how did the Malaysians react so far in their communication with us, ie, whether they have a particular response?

My second question is in the same line of questioning. The Malaysians had mentioned the disagreement over our reclamation of the shores between Singapore and Malaysia. We said that we want to wait for a third party official communication from Malaysia. So, has there been any communication from the Malaysians on this matter?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Leong Horn Kee asked two questions. The first part of his question was: what was the Malaysians' response to what we have said about developing alternative sources? There has not been any official response because this was a statement made by the Prime Minister. But I am sure the Member as well as other Members would have noted in the media, some of their leaders have made statements to the effect that this is up to Singapore. But there has not been any official response. Whether we will take this up in detail during the first round of discussions is another matter.

Reclamation is not an issue as part of the package. But since the Member has raised the question, let me recall, first, what we have said in this Chamber - that Malaysia had previously sent us two notes. And these notes were on 28th January and 2nd April. But those first two Notes were confined solely to their claim that our reclamation in the Tuas area had encroached on their territorial waters and jurisdiction, which is not true and we have categorically refuted those claims.

More recently, Malaysians have sent us a note on 30th April protesting our reclamation works around Tekong and Ubin on broad grounds of trans-boundary environmental impact. But I should say that neither the latest Note nor the two previous Notes in any way contain the detailed facts about their concerns of how the reclamation has affected them. You will recall that Singapore has consistently said that the Malaysians ought to send us a note itemising their concerns. And this was requested by Deputy Prime Minister when he visited Malaysia in March. The Malaysians have said that they will send us such a note. What we need really is not itemisation of general allegations or broad complaints. What we need are details of how our reclamation has adversely affected them, then only we can reply. We have to-date not received such a note itemising and setting out the details of their concerns. They have said that they will send us that note. Members would have read in the media comments by their leaders that they are preparing such a note and it may take a few months. We await that note. When we receive that note and we have the details of their claims, not broad allegations, we will study them and give a reply.