Reclamation works: Experts found no major impact on environment

The Straits Times, May 27, 2005
By Lydia Lim



Independent panel's conclusion paves way for resolving dispute

INDEPENDENT experts appointed to study the impact of Singapore's reclamation works in the Johor Straits found no major changes to the environment.

The group submitted a unanimous report last November.

This formed the basis of a settlement agreement which the two countries signed yesterday, bringing to an end their three-year dispute over the matter.

The findings by the panel of four international engineering experts are consistent with Singapore's own studies.

It conducted impact studies before starting reclamation works around Pulau Tekong in 2001.

The research showed that there would be no significant impact on the environment.

But in 2002, Malaysia disputed this point. It claimed that the reclamation was causing 'serious and irreversible damage to the marine environment and serious prejudice' to its rights.

In September 2003, Malaysia took its case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg. Its aim: Get the court to order Singapore to stop work immediately.

A month later, however, the court ruled that Singapore could continue reclamation.

It also ordered both sides to jointly appoint a group of experts to study the impact, which they did soon after.

At a press conference yesterday, Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh said the experts' findings are 'good news for both sides'.

The experts drew up a list of 57 categories to be studied, ranging from the impact on fishing to navigational safety to the transport of sediment.

In 40 categories, they found that the reclamation caused 'slight' changes. This means the changes showed up in computer graphs but were too small to be measured in the environment.

In the remaining 17 categories, they found the reclamation had a 'minor' to 'moderate' impact, that is, they could be measured in the environment.

They then recommended measures to minimise the impact in these 17 areas, which both sides have agreed to implement.


Change shoreline of Area D: Singapore will change the shape of its reclamation by taking a 'bite' along Area D's eastern shore.

This will slow down the maximum current speeds in the straits to at most a tenth swifter than pre-reclamation.

It will also address Malaysia's concerns about navigational safety in the Pularek area, where it has a naval base.

The bite means a loss in reclaimed area. To make up for it, Singapore will grow 'a nose', by reclaiming more at the southern tip of Area D.


Dredge the 'bite': It will do so to make sure the water depth in the 'bite' is at least 12m.


Round off Changi Finger: It will alter the shape of this thin peninsula to make navigation in the area safer.


Replace steel pilings around Area D: In their place will be a stone wall, to reduce wave action in Calder Harbour. Singapore has 70 months or about six years to do so.


Protect jetties: Singapore will pay $300,000 for works to make Tanjung Belungkor jetty more stable. Malaysia will bear the cost of doing the same for Pularek jetty.


Compensate fishermen: Singapore will pay a lump sum of RM374,400 (S$162,300) to compensate Malaysian fishermen for their losses.

Mrs Cheong Koon Hean, deputy secretary at the Ministry of National Development, said Singapore's own technical team did not think the experts' findings on the impact on fishing were conclusive.

Neither Singapore nor Malaysia agreed with every part of the experts' study 100 per cent, pointed out Mrs Cheong, who liaised with the group of experts on Singapore's behalf.

Both sides, however, recognised the need to find a balance in settling the problem.

It was in this spirit that Singapore agreed to make a lump sum payment to affected fishermen, she said, adding: 'We should look at the settlement holistically.'

Responding to a reporter's question, Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh estimated that the three-year dispute had cost the two countries more than $10 million.

The year-long study by the group of experts itself cost $8 million. Both sides also incurred legal costs.

'By bringing this to a happy conclusion, by not taking our disagreement to arbitration, which will mean another costly affair, we've also saved Malaysian taxpayers and Singapore taxpayers money,' Professor Koh said.