'High time for a new approach to water'

The Straits Times, April 6, 2002

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday spoke at length on how Malaysia's supply of water to Singapore has bedevilled bilateral ties for the past 37 years. We reproduce extracts from his speech



WATER is a complicated issue between our two countries. In fact, it has been a constant source of tension since our independence.

The picture that has been recently painted in the Malaysian media is one of a selfish Singapore profiteering from our purchase of raw water from Johor.

As in the reclamation issue, this picture is skewed to arouse feelings. Let me give you an example. We have been accused by a Malaysian newspaper of raking in huge profits of RM600 million (S$252 million) annually, by selling the water we get from Johor at three sen per thousand gallons, to ships which call at Singapore.

Water sold to ships calling at our ports do attract high tariffs, but this is only because we do not want to encourage this kind of demand. We sell only a small quantity of water to ships - about 1.0 mgd (million gallons per day).

This is less than 1 per cent of Singapore's total water demand. The revenue Singapore gets from this sale is nowhere near the figure of RM600 million cited. Last year, Singapore's gross revenue from our sale of water to ships totalled about RM40 million.

The key unhappiness, however, is in the current price of three sen that we are paying Johor for raw water.

As part of the deal on the bilateral package, we had offered to increase this three sen for raw water that was agreed between Singapore and Malaysia in the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements.

In addition, we had been prepared to vary the Points of Agreement (POA) on Malayan Railway Land, and offer Malaysia additional plots of land for joint development.
All these concessions that Singapore had offered under the bilateral package must be taken into account when considering the price Singapore is willing to pay for water under a new agreement.

But for Singapore, this issue goes beyond money. The 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements are international treaties, legally binding on Singapore and Malaysia.

They are guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement and cannot be varied except as provided for within the Agreements, or by mutual consent.

But we were prepared to consider an increase in the price of existing water within the bilateral package and as a gesture of our goodwill to help conclude a deal.

I bring up this point because at the height of the furore over water, certain comments by the Malaysian media troubled us. They seemed to suggest that Malaysia should unilaterally amend the terms of the existing Water Agreements, if resolution could not be reached on a new price for existing water.

For example, a New Straits Times editorial of Jan 30 commented: ''By (Singapore) suggesting that these agreements continue to apply by default because the Johor state government failed to re-negotiate the price structure after 25 years in 1986 and 1987, it is simply playing hard to get.''

The same editorial suggested that the issue of water be viewed as a business transaction - agree to a price, seal the deal, or part with no hard feelings and look elsewhere for water.

In other words, if Singapore does not agree to Malaysia's price for water, we would have to look elsewhere for water because Malaysia would stop its supply to us.
But it is not so simple. Both sides can walk away from the negotiations on a new agreement on water if we cannot reach agreement.

However, both sides have to honour the existing 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. As I mentioned earlier, these two agreements were confirmed and guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement, also known as the Independence of Singapore Agreement.

Any breach of the Water Agreements would also call into question the Separation Agreement, and undermine our very existence. This is totally unacceptable.

I think it is high time we explore a different approach to water supply from Malaysia. I do not want our relations with Malaysia to be always strained by this issue.

It is not healthy for our two countries to be always locked in dispute. It is unwise to allow this one issue to sour bilateral relations at all levels and on all fronts. It prevents us from cooperating in strategic areas of mutual benefit. The long-term interests of our two countries might be better served if we can remove this constant thorn in bilateral relations.

The sensitivity of this water issue goes back to the Separation. On Aug 9, 1965, the very day of our independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman told the British High Commissioner in Malaya: ''If Singapore's foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia's interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor.''

Time has not changed this perception that water is to be used as leverage against Singapore. In an article entitled ''Water as a Factor in International Relations'', published in the November 2000 issue of Strategi, a journal of the Malaysia Armed Forces College, a Lt-Col Azmy Yahya wrote: ''Malaysia should take full advantage of water as a strategic weapon to counter Singapore's military advantage over Malaysia.''

Noting that ''without water, Singapore may not survive'', Azmy said that apart from the ability to disrupt the water supply to Singapore, Malaysia also had the capability to pollute the supply with either chemical or biological weapons. He argued that Malaysia had the right to defend itself through all means.

Fortunately, though, there are others with a more realistic sense of the situation.
Lt-Gen Zaini Mohamed Said, the former Malaysian Army Field Commander, wrote a commentary in Mingguan Malaysia just two months ago when media criticisms against us on water were at their zenith.

He pointed out that water was a security issue that could lead to armed conflict. He reminded Malaysians that the Singapore military was stronger and more sophisticated. And although Malaysia had its own means of responding, Zaini concluded that both sides would be losers if it came to armed conflict.

It is not healthy to always have a Damocles' sword hanging over our heads. It breeds mistrust and suspicion, and does not make for a productive relationship.

It may be better for bilateral relations if we start to move a little away from our reliance on Malaysia for water.

This is doable if we have to do it. We have already called a tender for a 30-mgd desalination plant. We have been operating a plant to produce NEWater (reclaimed water) using membrane technology for two years now.

And we intend to build more such NEWater plants. The cost of these alternative sources of water is not all that prohibitive either.

We want to have good, stable relations with Malaysia for the long term and for mutual benefit. We shall play our part to achieve this.
Malaysia has written to us with their latest proposal on the bilateral package. We shall send them our reply some time next week.