BRIDGE CONNECTING JOHORE TO SINGAPORE

BRIDGE CONNECTING JOHORE TO SINGAPORE: 1.

Mr R Ravindran asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Malaysian Government has officially consulted Singapore or sought Singapore's concurrence on its proposal to demolish its side of the Johore Causeway and to build a bridge connecting Johore to the Singapore side of the Causeway.

2.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the recent overtures and call for a rethink on the multi-billion ringgit bridge project by Datuk Shahrir Samad of Malaysia, what would be Singapore's response to the bilateral relationship with Malaysia.

Column: 12

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take the first two Questions together?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you. In reply to Mr Ravindran's Question, to date, we have not had any request for consultations on this proposal nor has our concurrence been sought.

On 25th October 2003, that is more than two months ago, we sent a Third Party Note (TPN) to Malaysia on this subject. In that TPN Singapore reminded Malaysia that its unilateral decision to demolish its side of the Causeway in order to construct a half-bridge must comply with the principles enunciated in the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) Order [ of 8 October 2003 on Malaysia's application for provisional measures concerning Singapore's reclamation works ], and in addition, be fully consistent with the requirements of international law governing this matter.

Singapore decided to send this TPN because the Deputy Foreign Minister of Malaysia Datuk Leo Toyad was reported to have said in the Dewan Rakyat on 30th September 2003:

" I would also like to inform the honourable MPs that construction of the bridge does not need neither (sic) approval, agreement nor involvement of Singapore because it is being built on the Malaysian side of the border."

Our TPN pointed out that international facilities such as the Causeway cannot be lawfully demolished without the approval, agreement and involvement of both States.

Column: 13

We pointed out that in its Order, ITLOS had enunciated several points that were relevant to this issue. In particular, ITLOS said, " Malaysia and Singapore share the same marine environment in and around the Straits of Johore". The Tribunal also stated that "the duty to cooperate is a fundamental principle in the prevention of pollution of the marine environment".

In the TPN we expressed concern about the potential environmental impacts and also about the other impacts arising from the opening of the Causeway.

We requested Malaysia to provide Singapore with copies of relevant studies and reports relating to the potential marine and other impacts arising from the opening of the Malaysian side of the Causeway.

We assured Malaysia that we will examine these reports and studies with all deliberate speed and we proposed that a meeting of senior officials be convened as soon as possible to discuss these studies and reports and to address the question of how the opening of the Causeway would impact the marine environment in and around the Straits.

If I may turn to Mdm Ho Geok Choo's Question. I believe she is referring to reports in the Malaysian media calling for a rethink of the half-bridge. I should remind the House that when Singapore reluctantly agreed to the demolition of the Causeway and to build our part of a full bridge, it was as part of a package deal covering several issues. The one important part of that package was the continued supply of water from Johore for another 100 years from 2061. But Malaysia called off the package in October 2002. The building of our part of a full bridge, along with related CIQ revisions, would cost us over S$500 million. It would also sterilise the use of land under the bridge. From Singapore's point of view, the bridge was not cost effective

Column: 14

compared to the Causeway. It did not make sense for Singapore to agree to a full bridge and build our part of it at such considerable costs. We agreed to it only because of Prime Minister Mahathir's offer to supply water at 60 sen per 1,000 gallons beyond 2061.

After Prime Minister Mahathir withdrew his offer of future water supplies after 2061, Singapore has committed itself at considerable costs to building two new reservoirs, and expanding its facilities for producing NEWater and installing desalination plants. We believe that relations with Malaysia will be less fraught with potential conflicts if Singapore produces as much water as it can to supplement the existing Water Agreements.

Since Mdm Ho also asked about our response to the bilateral relationship with Malaysia, let me say that our relations with Malaysia are multifaceted and go beyond any single bilateral subject, whether bridge or other difficult issues that arose under Prime Minister Mahathir. We share extensive historic, economic, trade and people-to-people links. Both sides need to build on these links, and as you would have read about their meeting in Tokyo, both Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Badawi have stressed the importance of keeping bilateral relations good. We look forward to Prime Minister Badawi's visit to Singapore on 12th January 2004. We will welcome his ideas and approach on how we can put the past behind us and move the bilateral relationship forward.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister say that during Prime Minister Badawi's visit to Singapore the issue of the bridge will be discussed?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I prefer not to speculate on what issues Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Badawi will raise

Column: 15

during their meeting on 12th January. We will of course be willing to discuss issues that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi may wish to raise and listen to any proposal that he may have. I think the broader point is that Singapore wants good relations with Malaysia and I am certain that both Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi will discuss issues in the same positive and forward-looking manner as in the first meeting in Tokyo. I believe both sides can continue to look for ways to cooperate for mutual benefit.

I should say that I noted that Foreign Minister Syed Hamid is reported to have told the media yesterday that, "It is up to the leaders to discuss what they deem appropriate during the meeting and they are free to talk about anything and everything." He added, "Our relations with Singapore are not just about solving such issues. We have other common interests ranging from economic to the social well-being of people in both countries." Let me say that I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Foreign Minister Syed Hamid.

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Two supplementary questions, Sir. The first question is: has there been any response from the Malaysian government with regard to our 25th October TPN? The second question is: what is our position if the Malaysians proceed to demolish the bridge and the ancillary services that are linked to Singapore?

Prof. Jayakumar: We have not received any reply and I assume that they must be studying the matter. The only other development is that on 27th October last year, PUB received two notices from the Federal Lands Commissioner of Malaysia and three letters on 16th October 2003 from the Johore State Secretary informing PUB that the government of Malaysia intended to make alterations and improvements to

Column: 16

the Malaysian side of the Causeway and the permanent way connecting the mainland of Johore to the Causeway and they proposed a diversion of the PUB pipelines. It was not clear if the proposed pipeline diversions related to Malaysia's half-bridge plans. Neither was it mentioned if the diversions were necessitated by the construction of the Johore CIQ.

Therefore, we sent another TPN to the Malaysian government on 17th November 2003 referring to these letters and notices. Singapore reminded Malaysia of our previous TPN of 25th October and added that Malaysia had yet to respond to our concerns. It added that it was not clear from the letters and notices from the Johore State Secretary and Federal Lands Commissioner whether the so-called alterations and improvements were connected with the proposed half-bridge. We requested that Malaysia ensure that officials and contractors connected with the project did not take any action inconsistent with the rights and interests of Singapore under international law.

Mr Ravindran asked a second question: what happens if they proceed? Members know that it is my style not to speculate. Let us take things one step at a time. We have registered our concerns. Let them study our TPN and when they respond we will have to study their reply. I would want to wait and study their reply when it comes. I would not want to assume that they will take unilateral action in this regard of international law.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Sir, I want to ask whether the Minister is aware that after Datuk Abdullah Badawi took over as Prime Minister, the press and media have played up the good prospect of better relations between Malaysia and Singapore. I also want to ask: what next in our relationship? What would be the agenda or pace of negotiations? I think it would be of public interest to all.

Column: 17

Prof. Jayakumar: The Member is asking me, in a sense, to prejudge the outcome of the discussions between the Prime Ministers which I want to avoid. I have already underlined that both sides have stressed the importance of good relations. Both Prime Ministers have underscored that they want to work for good relations.

When the Member asked what is next, I think the challenge for both sides in the new era is to look for ways of starting a new chapter in bilateral relations where we can press on with bilateral cooperation, work together in the interest of ASEAN and to do all this without being saddled by the deadlocked issues of the old era. Yes, there are issues from the old era which have to be addressed but we have to find a way of addressing them that we do not reopen the acrimonious paths which we have travelled in previous years.