Mr Chairman, Sir, compared with previous years, I cannot recall a Committee of Supply where so many Members have moved their motions or cuts on Malaysia. I think this is the largest number but this is understandable in view of what Dr Ong Chit Chung had said about the ups and downs in our bilateral relationship and the way in which Singapore has been criticised in the Malaysian media on several issues over the past few months.
Prime Minister Goh recently on 5 May 02 spoke on the negative reports in the Malaysian media. It started with the water issue in January. We were portrayed as having profiteered from the purchase of water from Johor at a "unreasonably" low price all these years as a result of "unfair" Agreements as mentioned by Irene Ng. Then in February, the media turned to the tudung issue, some alleging that our policy was part of an overall scheme to marginalise the Malay-Muslim community following the 11 September events and the arrest of the JI in Singapore.
Then in late February, the focus moved on to Singapore's land reclamation works. And soon in March, remarks which had been made in jest by Vivian Balakrishnan almost threatened to become a self-contained bilateral issue. Then in April, criticism turned to the lighthouse that we are entitled to operate on Pulau Pisang, with wild allegations that armed Singapore personnel were going there. More recently, Members would have read reports that Singapore was buying fewer tomatoes from Cameron Highlands, and accusations that Singapore was turning away Malaysian vegetables because they did not satisfy certain health standards that we had somehow kept secret all these years.
In levelling these accusations against us, Singapore was asked to "compromise" and exhibit neighbourly behaviour. The comments suggest that Singapore should accede to Malaysia's expressed concerns, regardless whether they were formally raised or substantiated to be facts. Anything short of accepting and abiding by the Malaysian concerns was deemed to be insensitivity on our part towards our neighbours. In essence, we were asked to accept a zero-sum fait accompli.
Now, how should we respond to all these unsubstantiated claims and allegations? Sir, I suggest that the best course of action for us is not to be unduly perturbed by these strident diatribes but proceed with our daily affairs as we have many pressing issues in our national agenda. Of course we want good relations with Malaysia but as Prime Minister said recently, we cannot be chasing and answering each and every wild allegation that is made. But of course if it is a serious point that has been made, backed by proper facts, we should be ready to look into them.
I therefore do not want this afternoon to reply point-by-point to each one of the Malaysian allegations that Members have raised. Instead, I will quickly update Members on the status of our package negotiations and our reclamation works.
Package
On 3 May 2002, I had replied to Mr Leong Horn Kee here for a request for an update on our package negotiations with Malaysia. Members will recall that I said I had proposed a set of dates to my counterpart, Syed Hamid, for a meeting between both sides following the correspondence between the Prime Ministers. He has offered alternative dates. Now officials from both sides are working out dates convenient for both us and I believe that they will soon settle the date for the first meeting.
Dr Ong Chit Chung asked what have been the reactions to what the Prime Minister spoke about self-sufficiency in water. But as I have said before, Members would have read statements that different leaders in Malaysia have made. There has not been an official government reaction and I do not think it was really called for. When Prime Minister spoke on this, Members would have read that Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said that if we want to look at other sources of water supply, it is up to us and he said that it is not going to affect negatively or jeopardise bilateral ties.
Reclamation
Members would recall that I spoke on this on 3 May 2002 in response to Mr Leong Horn Kee. I had informed the House that Malaysia had sent a Note on 30 April 2002 on our reclamation works around Tekong and Ubin. That was the third Note after two previous Notes which had focused on reclamation works in the Tuas area where they alleged that we had violated their territorial sovereignty. This third Malaysian Note contained only general allegations that our Tekong reclamation works had an impact on their territorial waters, but there were no specific, none whatever, details to substantiate their allegations.
We have replied and rebutted their two previous Notes. I would like to inform Members that we have replied to the third Note on 15 May 2002. The Malaysian High Commissioner to Singapore was called in to receive a copy of our official reply where we stated that their allegations that our reclamation works had caused a "transboundary environmental impact" upon Malaysian territorial waters and their claim that it had narrowed "the waterway" in Kuala Johor were unsubstantiated and lacked particulars. We therefore reminded the High Commissioner to ask his government to send us a Note itemizing their concerns in detail for us to study. So in reply to Dr Ong Chit Chung, the answer is no. We are still waiting for that comprehensive Note.
Now what I have said so far about the package negotiations and reclamation works is factual. But it is true that both matters have become bell-wethers for the course of Singapore-Malaysia relations. It would be natural for many in this House and many Singaporeans to conclude that our relations with Malaysia are at a low point based on the way these and other issues have hogged the headlines in the recent months. There is no denying that Singapore-Malaysia relations have encountered choppy waters, but I would say that like the tide which ebbs and flows, the current rough patch is considered normal in state-to-state relations between immediate neighbours. Singapore and Malaysia share a complex and interlinked relationship. Keeping it on an even keel is never an easy task. Therefore, I agree with colleagues who have said that both sides should view Singapore-Malaysia relations not in an emotional sense bogged down by historical baggage but from a pragmatic and longer-term perspective, rather than try to seek short-term gains through one-upmanship.
I also noted what Irene Ng said just now. Yes, negotiating with the Malaysians is not easy. But does it mean that we do not negotiate with them? I do not think that this is what she meant. Our experience has been that notwithstanding all the difficulties, it is still possible to reach agreements with the Malaysians but this is provided that there is the political will and goodwill to do so.
I also agree with her that if new issues are thrown into the package that is currently on the table, it will make the negotiations even more complicated and the chances of reaching agreement even more slim. But that is not to say that in our bilateral relations, new issues will not crop up. Events have shown that they do crop up, and we have to deal with them as and when they emerge.
"Skinning the Cat"
Now, this matter of "skinning the cat". Many Members have alluded to Dr Mahathir's 'skinning the cat' remarks that quoted from the Berita Harian (Malaysia) report of 3 May 02 where he is quoted as saying: "We can skin a cat in many ways. To skin Singapore, there is not just one method." Now I was curious and looked up the various newspaper articles and magazines and it would seem that Dr Mahathir seems to have a fondness for skinning cats. He has used this phrase "we can skin a cat in many ways" on several other occasions. For example:
In an interview with Asia Incorporated of 4 May, in answer to a question "If you had to describe Malaysia's approach to globalisation in one sentence, how would you do it?", and he replied, "Firstly, listen to everyone...Number two, always accept that there are many ways to skin a cat, many ways to do things in order to achieve results."
Similarly at the PEBC conference in Kuala Lumpur, when asked to explain Malaysia's approach in dealing with the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, he said: "People know that there are many ways to skin a cat. We have chosen the unorthodox way and the cat has been neatly skinned." (NST, 7 May 02)
But Mr Chairman, Sir, I would urge Members that we should take such remarks in our stride. This is not the first time, and it will not be the last time that we are called names. We have been called all kinds of names- a 'little red dot', 'a pimple that will not burst' and so on.
Singaporeans have also often been accused of being thick-skinned. So trying to skin us can be quite a daunting task. Despite all the name-calling that we have endured over these years, Singapore continues with our business, we continue to survive and we continue to prosper. Cats, after all, have nine lives, they say. And no cat is ever going to lie down meekly to be skinned.
So, I would say to Members of the House that we should not allow such name-calling to deter us from what we must do to defend and promote our national interests. Instead, I think all of us should look and take note of the underlying message behind the metaphor, the underlying message of how seriously they intend to compete with us and we therefore have to gird ourselves to meet this challenge.
Sir, Singapore-Malaysia relations are extremely complicated, as must be any relationship of close inter-dependence. There are many strands in the relationship, and not all the strands are always neatly compartmentalised or compatible. There will always be ups and downs.
And it is a fact that some Malaysians delight in putting Singapore down. But that strand of thinking revealed is not the only one in Malaysia. There is also an understanding that given the close inter-dependence between our countries, what hurts Singapore will also hurt Malaysia, and the games of one-upmanship should not be allowed to go too far.
In fact, Dr Mahathir himself said so recently when commenting on our reclamation works, he said:
"We must be careful in handling a problem such as this because we don't want to be at war with Singapore ... That's why, when handling national affairs, we have to be extremely careful and wise ..." (Bernama, 14 April 02).
So, I would repeat, let us not get too worked up over these remarks. It should not deter us from seeking cooperation with Malaysia when cooperation is to mutual benefit. But we must cooperate without any illusions.
I would say let us take the Malaysian criticisms against us in our stride. There is no need to get excited. They in fact constitute in a sense a form of psywar to weaken our morale and soften our position on matters under negotiation or discussion. Let us quietly and politely state the facts and stand on them. Mr Ravindran said put it on the website. I would ask my High Commissioner in KL. I know that they are doing a good job disseminating all the speeches and positions to various quarters in Malaysia. They have a website, and if it can be improved as Mr Ravindran said, let us do so. But the important point is that notwithstanding the present cloudy atmospherics, we are committed to forging a long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect and sovereign equality. We are neighbours who can and should cooperate and realise the full potential in our bilateral relationship and find win-win solutions. As PM Goh himself said, both countries should be working together to consolidate and lead ASEAN.
Lessons Learnt
Dr Ong Chit Chung asked if I could reflect on what are the lessons that we can learn from this? I think that there are several useful lessons, if I may enumerate them. I think the points are alluded to by Mr Chiam See Tong about the media and Mr Sim Boon Ann too.
First of all, we should not negotiate or try to negotiate or raise bilateral issues in the mass media. If the goal is to resolve the problem, then conducting bilateral relations through the media will actually complicate finding a resolution. Playing up bilateral issues through the media restricts the manoeuvrability of both sides. It is much easier to find a solution which would benefit both parties if such issues are quietly handled. In fact, in an interview with the Straits Times on 22 February 1999, my Malaysian counterpart, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, said: "But what is considered as sensitive and can be misunderstood and can create tension should be kept outside the public domain." He had also noted that quiet diplomacy would enable the points of contention to be resolved speedily by both sides. I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with him. Unfortunately, the recent public comments by some Malaysian politicians and the media barrage against Singapore on several issues indicate that Minister Syed Hamid's sound advice in 1999 have not been heeded.
Second, while disagreements from time to time are to be expected it is vital that we keep our channels of communications open. This was the point made by Zainal Abidin. I am glad that despite the media barrage, there has been a steady exchange of visits between Singaporean and Malaysian leaders since the start of the year. For instance, several Malaysian Ministers have come here such as the BN Youth delegation. On the Singapore side, DPM Lee visited KL. Our President was also in KL for the annual NUS-University of Malaya Golf tournament. Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister George Yeo have made visits. More recently, Minister Wong Kan Seng visited Malaysia for the annual games between MHA and their Malaysian counterparts earlier this month and he met with Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi.
These exchanges should continue. Perhaps they are even more important when relations go through a rough patch. They give the opportunity for both sides to share views and discuss key issues. The agreement by the youth wings of the PAP and Barisan Nasional to formalise their relationship by having a secretariat is also move in the right direction.
Third, touching on the point Sin Boon Ann made on reciprocity, there should not be double standards applied to the cardinal principle of non-interference into the internal affairs of one another. More so, when the issue involved is sensitive with a possible impact on racial and religious harmony. The tudung issue is a case in point. Some Malaysian politicians continue to hold the position that they have a right to comment on Singapore issues involving race and religion. These comments do not help in any way advance bilateral relations. On the contrary, they will merely complicate and confuse matters further. For example, the tudung issue is not about the religious rights of Muslims in Singapore, and I fail to understand how Singapore's school uniform policy is anything but a domestic issue for Singaporeans to decide on.
Fourthly, this touches on the point Irene Ng made earlier. The relationship between Singapore and Malaysia must continue to be based on international law and observance of agreements. It cannot be based on subjective criteria, or based on emotionalism or sentimentality. Otherwise, there would be no basis to judge whether one's action was right or whether one's action was wrong. As a small nation, Singapore adheres closely to this principle. That was why we have stressed legally binding agreements such as the POA and Water Agreements and repeatedly stated that our reclamation works are being carried out within Singapore's territorial waters and in accordance with international law.
Recently, a New Straits Times editorial (15 April), referring to the my Ministry's Addendum, said that Singapore was "over-legalistic" and added that "what follows from Singapore's overweening legalism is a fixation with 'facts' the sort that would stand up in an adversarial court of law, and a foreclosing of the flexible positions that would conduce to a friendly tete-a-tete."
"Fixation with facts"? "Legalistic"? Sir, sticking to facts and law is surely the only basis for any relationship which is not based on the arbitrary wishes of any single party. How else can it be? How can sound international relations be possible if we do not have regard for principles of international law and agreements lawfully entered into by Governments? Also, how can we have sound basis for bilateral relations if we ignore facts and instead rely on unsubstantiated allegations, distortions and rumours? Yes, we can have friendly tete-a-tetes - and indeed we are having them as I mentioned with all this to-ing and fro-ing - but this cannot be at the expense of ignoring facts or abandoning solemn legal commitments.
So to conclude let me stress again that it is not the intention of Singapore or interest to have strained relations with Malaysia. We seek a cooperative relationship based on mutual benefit and mutual respect. Not one based on emotion or historical baggage as some Members have said. Inevitably, there will be ups and downs in bilateral relations. Therefore, we believe that both sides should address problems pragmatically, on equal terms, taking a longer-term perspective without resorting to unsubstantiated allegations or threats. I think on this basis, Singapore and Malaysia can enjoy a calm and balanced bilateral relationship.