[Water | Pedra Branca | Loose Talk of War | The Way Forward ]
Q. Why can't Singapore be more reasonable and pay a little more for the sake of neighbourliness and good bilateral relations?
A. The water dispute is not about money but Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore's independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.
The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.
Notwithstanding
the fact that Malaysia has lost the right to a price review under the Water Agreements,
Singapore was prepared to pay more for current water, in exchange for an assured
future supply of water after 2061 and in the context of a package deal for resolving
outstanding bilateral issues.
Q. How and in what way has Malaysia been twisting and turning during the negotiations?
A. The documents released in Parliament show clearly that Malaysia has repeatedly changed its mind on the price of water and shifted the goal posts whenever we were close to an agreement. They first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, they increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Later they increased their demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. This is a 200-fold increase! The Malaysians also refused to discuss future water supplied to Singapore until 2059, two years before the 1962 Water Agreement runs out.
In
Dec 98, Malaysia requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as
a package. Singapore agreed. But Malaysia's constant flip-flops in position made
it hard to reach any agreement. Finally, it became clear Malaysia did not want
to sell future water to Singapore. They even unilaterally called off the package
approach. So there was nothing left to negotiate.
Q. Didn't the Water Agreements provide for a price review after 25 years? If so, why cannot Malaysia ask for a review now?
A. Malaysia
has lost its legal right to a price review under the Water Agreements. The two
Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and
1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was
a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker
Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so
because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore
would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So,
Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it would not benefit them
at that time.
Q. Is it true Singapore is "profiteering" by buying raw water cheap from Malaysia and selling treated water to Malaysia at a high price?
A. No, on the contrary, we are selling treated water cheap to Malaysia and Malaysia is reselling that to Malaysians for a big profit.
The
arithmetic is quite simple. For every 1000 gallons of water:
Singapore pays
3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this
water
Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents
Singapore pays 3 sen for raw water, but the real cost to us for raw water is much higher because we pay for all the construction costs to build the reservoirs, dams and pipeworks to bring the water to Singapore.
On
the other hand, Malaysia makes money from the treated water they buy from us.
Each day, Malaysia buys 37 million gallons of treated water. This means that we
lose to Malaysia RM70,000 a day for treated water, and Johor makes a profit of
RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought cheaply from us. That's a
profit of RM47 million each year!
Q. Is it true the Water Agreements and the low price of 3 sen were all "fixed by the British" in 1927, working in favour of Singapore as Malaysia has claimed?
A.
No. The 1927 Water Agreement did not cover the price of water supplied to Singapore.
So it is absolutely wrong to say that the 3 sen price was fixed by the British
who "favoured" Singapore. The price was set under the 1961 and 1962
Water Agreements signed by the Johor State Government and the Singapore City Council.
By then, Malaya was already an independent nation, and Singapore had achieved
self-government. It is absurd to suggest that the Federal Government of an independent
and sovereign Malaya would have allowed the Johor State Government to be manipulated
by the British to sign an agreement that was against Malaya's national interests.
Q. What about Malaysia's claim that Singapore is "underpaying" Johor for raw water because Hong Kong buys water from China at RM8 per 1,000 gallons?
A. This is like comparing apples with oranges. Hong Kong pays China RM8, but in turn, China pays for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the reservoirs and the water pipes to deliver the water to Hong Kong. Singapore, on the other hand, pays for all these costs. Over the years, Singapore has spent over S$1 billion on such projects, and continues to pay for their upgrading and maintenance. Malaysia did not have to spend a cent.
Q. What is Pedra Branca?
A. Pedra Branca is an island that sits at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore. It lies about 24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore.
Its location has long been of strategic importance to us as it commands the entire eastern approach to the Straits of Singapore, through which almost 900 ships pass daily.
The oldest feature on the island is Horsburgh Lighthouse, which was built on the island by the British between 1847 and 1851.
Q. What is Singapore’s case with regard to Pedra Branca?
A. It is Singapore’s case that Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore because the British colonial government took possession of the island over 160 years ago to build Horsburgh Lighthouse and other structures on it. At that time, Pedra Branca was uninhabited and it belonged to no one.
Since then, Singapore has continuously and openly conducted acts of a sovereign nature over the entire island and its surrounding waters. In contrast, Malaysia did nothing and did not protest against any of the actions of Singapore.
In 1953, Johor stated in official correspondence with Singapore that it did not claim ownership over Pedra Branca. Malaysia also published a series of official maps from 1962 to 1975 depicting Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
Q. How did the dispute arise?
A. The dispute arose in 1979 when Malaysia published a map which claimed the island as hers. In response, Singapore lodged a formal protest with Malaysia, in early 1980.
Q. What have Singapore and Malaysia requested the ICJ to decide in this dispute?
A. Singapore and Malaysia have requested the ICJ to determine who has sovereignty over (a) Pedra Branca; (b) Middle Rocks; (c) South Ledge.
Q. What are Middle Rocks and South Ledge?
A. Middle Rocks and South Ledge are two maritime features to the south of Pedra Branca. Middle Rocks consists of two clusters of rocks situated 0.6 nautical miles south of Pedra Branca. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation (in other words, it is submerged at high tide), situated further south, 2.1 nautical miles, of Pedra Branca.
It is Singapore’s case that sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to the country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
Q. Why did Singapore and Malaysia decide to put the dispute before the ICJ?
A: Singapore and Malaysia agree that bringing this matter before the ICJ will remove an irritant from the bilateral relations between the two countries.
Q. Why did this process take so long?
A. It took slightly more than 20 years, from the time the dispute arose in 1979, for it to be finally brought before the ICJ. This suggestion was first made by Singapore in 1989. Malaysia accepted this proposal in 1994. The two countries agreed on the text of a Special Agreement (a formal agreement that was needed for the submission of this dispute to the ICJ) in 1998. Finally, the Special Agreement was signed on 6th February 2003 by the Foreign Ministers of both countries, and formally notified to the ICJ on 24 July 2003.
Q. What happened after Singapore and Malaysia submitted the Special Agreement to the ICJ in July 2003?
A. In accordance with the terms of the Special Agreement, the ICJ scheduled three rounds of written pleadings, which were to be exchanged simultaneously. These were duly submitted on 25 March 2004, 25 January 2005 and 25 November 2005.
In May 2006, the ICJ decided that no further written pleadings were required, thus closing the written proceedings phase of the case.
Q. What is the current status of the Pedra Branca case?
A. The case has now moved to the oral proceedings phase. Essentially, both Singapore and Malaysia will be making oral arguments before the ICJ from 6 - 23 November 2007. These hearings are open to the public and will be held at the ICJ’s Seat at the Peace Palace at The Hague (Netherlands).
The schedule of the hearings can be found on the ICJ’s website. Transcripts of the speeches which will be made by both sides will also be available on the ICJ’s website.
Q. Who will represent Singapore at the public hearings on the Pedra Branca case?
A. The Singapore delegation will comprise Deputy Prime Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Law Professor S. Jayakumar, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin, and Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh, who is also serving as the Agent of Singapore for this case. They will be accompanied by senior government officials. The Singapore delegation also comprises an experienced team of international legal Counsel, namely, Mr Ian Brownlie Q.C., Professor Alain Pellet, Mr Rodman Bundy and Ms Loretta Malintoppi.
Q. When will the Court render its judgement?
A. After the close of the public hearings, the ICJ will conduct their internal deliberations on the case. The decision is made by majority vote. Subsequently, the Court will inform us when their judgment is ready. The judgment, which is final and without appeal, is read out in open court with the parties present.
Q. How can I obtain more information on the ICJ?
A. For more information, please see: http://www.icj-cij.org/
Q. What is this talk of war over the unresolved bilateral issues?
A. It was started by Malaysian leaders and media. Such loose talk of war is irresponsible and dangerous. It whips up emotions that could become difficult to control.
Singapore wants to have good relations with Malaysia. There is much that both countries can gain by working together. Our common interests far exceed our differences.
Q. What next, now that the talks have reached an impasse?
A. It is in the interest of both countries to settle our differences through negotiations. However, as it is clear that we cannot expect renewal of water supply after 2061, the basis for future negotiations on water no longer exists. We are ready to have the dispute resolved through arbitration according to the laws of Johor, as provided for by the two Water Agreements.
[Water | Pedra Branca | Loose Talk of War | The Way Forward]