The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Professor S Jayakumar, gave an interview to BBC Producer Mr David Bottomley on Friday 8 November 2002. A full transcript of the interview is attached.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
12 NOVEMBER 2002
=======================================================
TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW BY MR DAVID BOTTOMLEY, BBC PRODUCER, WITH SINGAPORE FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR ON 8 NOVEMBER 2002
Q: The water negotiations - they first came into consideration some four years ago, which is quite some long time ago. What progress, if any, has been made on the water issue since then?
A: I would say that progress has been very slow. In fact, recently there has been a setback when Malaysia, on its own, decided to discontinue the package discussion.
Q: So progress has been slow. But in fact, has actually any progress been made at all bearing in mind what has happened in the last few weeks?
A: Well, since 1998, when the Prime Minister decided on a package negotiations on outstanding issues, the approach had been to discuss these issues on a package basis, which meant a trade-off between the two countries. We have had three rounds of senior officials meetings; Ministers had met twice; Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew went up twice to advance matters. But now, with Malaysia calling off the package discussions and wanting to discuss only water, I think it has been a setback.
Q: Are you back to square one?
A: I would say that we have had a reversal, which, in the sense that when trade-offs are no longer possible, each issue will now have to be discussed on its stand-alone merits. Offers which had previously been made by Singapore on a basis of a package are no longer possible and they are off the table. So, in that sense, you can say that we are back to square one.
Q: So how would you actually characterise the status of the talks at the moment - have they stalled, have they failed, are they on-going, what is exactly the status at the moment?
A: The package has been called off and the Malaysians have said they want to discuss only water. We went to Johor Bahru to discuss water issues but even there, we had a problem because the Malaysians were interested only in discussing revision of [price of] water in the current agreements and not about Singapore's request for water supply after expiry of the current agreements which they said we can discuss in 2059.
Q: Doesn't taking water out of the package, so to speak, make it easier to negotiate the issue? Ultimately, Malaysia wants a fair price for its water and disallows you to perhaps come out with a fair price without actually having to worry about other issues?
A: This matter of a fair price has to be put in context. The issue of price revision under current agreements was never part of the package. It was introduced in the year 2000 and Malaysia claimed their legal right and we dispute that and we said that they have no legal right. But nevertheless, we are prepared to discuss it as part of the package.
Q: But you are not prepared to discuss it on its own merits now?
A: We are prepared to discuss it but it has to be linked with the issue of SingaporeA?s request for supply of water after 2061. In other words, even if we take water outside the package, there are two issues which are linked but Malaysia is not really interested in discussing Singapore's request by fobbing it off and saying that it can be discussed in future, two years before the expiry of the water agreement. Now that is not a realistic or serious proposal. It doesn't enable us to plan our water management and policies between now and then.
Q: Now, of course, one of the accusations which Malaysia levels at Singapore quite a lot is that under the terms of the current agreements, Singapore is able to profit from Malaysia's water; it sells water at a very cheap price, you process it and then you sells it back to Malaysia or some of it back to Malaysia at a vastly inflated price. That's profiteering isn't it?
A: That is what they claimed. Now I have to make two points about that. First, when they say that Singapore purchases raw water at 3 sen and sells back to Johor at 50 sen, that is only half the story.
The other half of the story is that when Singapore sells treated water to Johor there is a cost, and Singapore spends 2 ringgit 40 sen in treating that water and we sell it 50 sen, which means that Singapore absorbs 1 ringgit 90 sen. Johor in turn sells the water which it purchases at 50 sen to its consumers at 3 ringgit 90 sen. So we have asked the question as to who is really profiteering.
I should also make another point: the Malaysians often refer to the Hong Kong model to justify the claim that Singapore is profiteering because Hong Kong pays some 8 ringgit to China for its water. But we have pointed out that Hong Kong does not bear the infrastructure costs whereas Singapore pays for the infrastructure costs in Johor and we have spent more than a $1 billion for the dam and other works in regard to water supply.
Q: So effectively, Singapore is subsidising part of Malaysia's water supply and yet the way it is represented by Malaysian politicians, by the Malaysian media, it is not that way. You are accused of profiteering. Why, if the case is that you are actually subsidising water supply, why do you think politicians are not reflecting the truth of the situation?
A: I think you have to ask the Malaysian politicians that. We have stated our case, we have stated the facts on several occasions in Parliament and elsewhere, and we have to assume that the facts speak for themselves but they may not have been publicised in Malaysia.
Q: How frustrating is it when your case is not being represented fairly by politicians and the media in Malaysia?
A: Well, they may have their own domestic agenda but I believe that the leaders and the politicians know the position of Singapore government because what I have just told you, we have made it very clear in our various negotiations with the Malaysians. We have countered these various allegations.
Q: You mentioned earlier that negotiations on the water are back to square one. Do you place the blame for that situation squarely on Malaysia's door?
A: I think it is not advancing our cause in blaming each other publicly. As Foreign Ministers we have to persevere in our discussions and hope that we can continue talking.
Q: And where do the talks go from here. How can you actually start to talk to Malaysia in such a way that progress can be made?
A: After the last Ministerial meeting in Singapore, Malaysian Foreign Minister said that when the senior officials meet and they have met recently and report to the Foreign Ministers, the Foreign Ministers will decide on the next meeting and he had offered the next meeting will be in Kuala Lumpur. We will wait for the Malaysians to indicate but most important is, they will have to indicate the seriousness of purpose and whether there is a serious basis to the next meeting. Which means, really, that we cannot have a meeting just to discuss one item of interest to them. In the nature of the negotiations, there must be give and take, and the objective is to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.
Q: One of your own Party's MP in Parliament has suggested whether it is actually worth continuing the talks at all. Are you at all close to saying well enough is enough, let us have a cooling off period?
A: No, my view has been and still is, wherever there is a room for further discussions and talks, we should not close the door, we should persevere as best as we can. There is much at stake for Singapore and Malaysia in this package discussions and let's see how far we can go.
Q: The talks should continue, even after four years, as you said yourself, little progress has been made?
A: Indeed. Let's see how much we can achieve. In the end, if we find that we cannot settle, we can put that aside and continue. Malaysia-Singapore relations have many facets. It doesn't mean that the sum total of our bilateral relations is the issues in the package. There are many other aspects of cooperation and these can continue. But of course it will be good to resolve these outstanding issues because the region, and Malaysia and Singapore, face much more urgent and pressing issues like terrorism. If we can resolve this, then we can focus our attention on that.
Q: Thank you very much.