The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prof S Jayakumar, was interviewed by CNN on 31 Jan 2003, by BizAsia anchor Andrew Stevens. An excerpt of the interview was aired tonight on CNN's BizAsia (11 Feb 2003, 7.30pm). Attached is the full unedited transcript of Minister Jayakumar's interview remarks on the water issue between Singapore and Malaysia which was recorded on 31 January 2003.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
11 FEBRUARY 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCIPT OF INTERVIEW BY SINGAPORE FOREIGN MINISTER PROF S JAYAKUMAR WITH CNN, 31 JAN 2003
Q: You took the unprecedented step of releasing details of the communication between (Singapore and Malaysia), why did you do that, why did you feel it was necessary to bring it out into public debate?
A: Well, really, we had no choice. I say we had "no choice" because we had been at the end of a barrage, continuous barrage, for the past few months of all sorts of allegations that have been hurled - such as we being the unreasonable party in the negotiations, that we were profiteering, that we were unneighbourly, and so on. And that we were bickering over a small price. We had to come up with all these documents to show that far from being the unreasonable party, that at every stage of the negotiations, that even though Malaysia kept changing the package, kept upping the price, kept going back on prices which they had offered - we had tried to accommodate their interests, we had never walked away from the negotiations and we had tried to be reasonable. So that was the reason why we had to come out with the documents, set out the facts and let the facts speak for themselves.
Q: It has soured the relationship though, hasn't it?
A: Well, it has not soured the relationship by very much more than what it was because the water talks had been at an impasse. And it was necessary for all concerned, whether Malaysians or Singaporeans, or the international community to know that it was not Singapore that had been the unreasonable party that brought about this impasse.
Q: But Singapore and Malaysia has a history of prickly relations over the years. How serious do you rate this particular disagreement between the two countries? There is talk of war.
A: I mentioned in my parliamentary statement that this talk of war, which was rather loose, by their leaders and the media was both senseless, unhelpful as well as dangerous. If you look at the facts, no Singaporean leader had ever talked about war. So the point is, I don't think both countries are going to war. But the talk of war, in loose terms, is really unhelpful.
How serious is the present state of disagreement over water? Our view is that as close neighbours, it's inevitable that we will have disagreements on various issues, whether it is water or other issues. But we must make sure -- both countries must make sure - that these issues do not mar the overall relationship because there's so much that both have to gain by cooperating in many areas. We are each other's important investment and trading partner. So, how do we do that? We have proposed that since the talks at an impasse, let us move on, settle this through arbitration in accordance with provisions of the Water Agreements and get on with our relations.
Q: Malaysia says that it wants to open negotiations (on future water) in 2058. What's your response to that - I mean it will be only two years before expiry of the actual Agreement?
A: It is a non-starter. You have to go back,...when we had this package negotiations - these past few years - our main interest in the package negotiations was assured water supply after 2061, when the present Water Agreements expired. The other items in the package, whether it was extra lands, railway lands for joint development, our half of the bridge - which would have cost half a billion dollars for Singapore - all were for Malaysia's benefit. Now the way the package evolved - Malaysia upping the price of water - we were still prepared to talk; then later, Malaysia said future water supply can only be discussed two years before expiry. It was not realistic - we have to plan for our water supply situation - so we have said, "That's not possible." And finally, Malaysia called off the package. Even then, we didn't walk away. We said, "Let's talk about current and future water supply." At that stage, they said they would not talk about future water supply, only current water supply.
Q: What Singapore was offered so far, what Malaysia has offered, Malaysia has basically now asked 10 times more than the offer of Singapore. Can you tell what you think a fair price is?
A: We had proposed a solution that we think will stand the test of time. And that solution is to have a formula that will peg the price of water to Singapore's cost of developing alternative water supply such as NeWater. Obviously, it doesn't make sense for us to agree to any price or formula that will be more expensive than the cost of our developing our water supplies. So this is what we put on the table. We think that it is reasonable because it doesn't make sense for us, really, to agree to any higher price than what it cost for desalination or developing our NeWater.