RECLAMATION WORKS AT TUAS AND PULAU TEKONG (Malaysia's legal challenge)

Column No : 3112

RECLAMATION WORKS AT TUAS AND PULAU TEKONG:

(Malaysia's legal challenge): 1.

Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Law if he will inform the House of the latest developments concerning the legal challenge brought by Malaysia in relation to Singapore's reclamation works at Tuas and Pulau Tekong.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Arthur Fong asked about the latest developments. The latest development, of course, is the Order of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on Malaysia's request for provisional measures against Singapore.

Let me just highlight the following points. The main request by Malaysia was to get ITLOS to compel Singapore to suspend its reclamation works. This was not granted. We can continue with our reclamation works. ITLOS also found no basis whatsoever for Malaysia's request for provisional measures on their territorial claim to "Point 20" in Tuas.

What ITLOS prescribed was for both parties to cooperate and consult on various measures. These include establishing a group of independent experts to conduct a study to determine the effects of Singapore's land reclamation and to propose measures to deal with adverse effects, if any. Both sides are also to exchange information, consult with each other and implement the various commitments given.

Sir, we have welcomed ITLOS' decision. Indeed, this has been the very approach which Singapore had stressed and which we had taken in our negotiations with Malaysia. The orders given by ITLOS to consult, exchange information and to do a joint study are all assurances that Singapore had freely given to Malaysia. These assurances were given well before the case went to ITLOS.

After the talks we had with Malaysia in August 2003, Singapore had conveyed its agreement for the joint study. Before that, we had also informed Malaysia that we were prepared to consult, exchange information and give Malaysia a full opportunity to comment on our reclamation works. We gave these assurances and commitments, despite Malaysia's ultimatum of 4th July 2003. We had wanted to resolve this issue through negotiations. But Malaysia rejected these offers and decided to take us to ITLOS.

Sir, the Tribunal also dealt with developments in Area D, ie, Pulau Tekong. The Tribunal has asked both countries to consult with a view to reaching agreement on temporary measures, if any, to ensure that the infilling operations do not prejudice the commitment made by Singapore pending the completion of the joint study. This commitment is that "no irreversible action would be taken by Singapore to construct the stone revetment around Area D pending the completion of the joint study, which should be completed within a year".

When the Minister for National Development and I met the media on 9th October 2003, Minister Mah Bow Tan had given a detailed account of the significance of Area D, which was fully reported in the media. To summarise, it is the area south of Pulau Tekong that is currently used as an "Offshore Containment Site". It is used for the deposit of soft soil and marine clay that is dug up during the course of our reclamation works, as well as from other construction activities on the Singapore mainland. To keep the deposited materials within the site, Area D is presently enclosed within a barrier of metal sheet piles. Eventually, a stone revetment wall will replace the sheet piles. The stone revetment wall is scheduled for completion around 2008.

As Minister for National Development has told the media, ITLOS has allowed Singapore to continue with its reclamation works. We intend to do so with care and due diligence, in accordance with our assurances and commitments to ITLOS.

Singapore will abide by ITLOS' decision. We welcome the statements by Malaysia's leaders that Malaysia would also abide by the Tribunal's decision. We look forward to working with Malaysia to implement ITLOS' decision and orders in good faith. Both sides must now work together to sort out the details and ensure that the group of independent experts is quickly appointed so that it can get down to its job of conducting the joint study.

Sir, in this regard, our agent for Singapore, Ambassador Tommy Koh, has written to the Agent of Malaysia, Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi, on 13th October 2003 to set the process in motion. The Malaysians have replied agreeing to have this meeting in Kuala Lumpur, and both sides are now sorting out mutually convenient dates for this meeting to be held soon.

Before concluding, let me say that the provisional measures hearing at ITLOS is only the first phase in the arbitration process. The next phase will see the proceedings move to what is known as the Annex VII tribunal, which was constituted as of 9th October 2003. Our team which has ably looked after Singapore's interests is fully geared up for this phase.

Meanwhile, as I said, the two parties will consult on the next steps that need to be done with regard to moving this phase forward. And as I said, we expect this to be done soon.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, almost all the mainstream media in Malaysia have led the coverage by claiming that Malaysia had won in its application for provisional measures to ITLOS pending arbitration. But the Minister has told us that, in fact, all these assurances were made even before ITLOS. Can the Minister help us to square this differing interpretation?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I think everybody knows what ITLOS decided, and if there is any doubt, one should read the judgment. And as we have stated clearly, the judgment or the order makes several prescriptions. But the most important thing to remember is that the thrust of Malaysia's action was to obtain an order to stop reclamation works by Singapore, and ITLOS did not agree to this. Instead, the order boils down to prescription of measures which I would describe as cooperation and consultation. In short, ITLOS had asked both sides to return to the negotiating table. That is how I would describe it.

If I may say, I think we should now get away from this "I won, you lost" or "You lost, I won" game. The fact is that ITLOS has given an order. Its terms are clear. Each side can give its interpretation but, at the end of the day, there are certain things to be done. What is important now is for both sides to move on. By moving on, I mean get down to the business of sitting down and discussing the implementation of ITLOS' orders and the requirements for consultations and discussions.

The next phase really has two parts. One is the setting up of the group of independent experts for conducting the study. At the same time, the next phase also involves the work of the arbitral tribunal which has been constituted to hear the merits of the case. So there is much work to be done by both sides. And I believe and hope that both sides will sit down and get on with it in good faith.