Singapore-Malaysia Relations

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one clarification. The flight path for Seletar airbase is the same, whether with ILS or without ILS. But from what we heard from the Malaysia Transport Minister Anthony Loke, he kept saying that it will prevent the development of Pasir Gudang, especially the tall buildings. So, I would like to ask whether the Minister, Anthony Loke, has different calculation or miscalculated, or is he, as how my residents put it, I quote, "frying roti prata"? Perhaps, my favourite Minister for Transport, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, who is meeting with him, will seek a clarification on this.

I thank the Member for her usual colourful allusions. What I will state is Minister Khaw and Minister Loke are due to meet, hopefully, by the end of this month. I do not want to engage in speculation as to the basis for his calculations and assumptions. I think it is best that both sides meet, set out their respective concerns and find a constructive way forward.

Sir, Singaporeans consider the recent act by the Johor Chief Minister as an affront towards Singapore's sovereign rights. Ultimately, we have to look at these emotive issues through cold, calculative lenses by taking deliberate steps to advance Singapore's interests, and our resolve to take such steps should not be underestimated. One solution is third party arbitration. Of course, there are other routes. My question for the Minister is: what positive actions and active steps can Singaporeans do to protect and preserve our sovereign rights?

Well, first of all, our current actions are designed precisely to protect and assert our sovereignty and our sovereign rights. The second point is that we do need more bilateral consultations. We do need negotiations to resolve these issues. I believe these issues are solvable, but it needs to be a frank, open, candid, sincere exchange of views.

As for Singaporeans, I mentioned just now that foreign policy begins at home, the unity of purpose, the calm way in which Singaporeans have responded to this. Calmness does not mean passivity. But actually, both countries, and I think especially the businessmen on both sides, are aware of how our economies are intertwined, and these sorts of disputes are unnecessary and unhelpful. So, calmly, resolutely, firmly asserting our sovereignty and our rights, and then quietly taking appropriate actions is probably the wisest course at this point in time. I do not want to speculate as to other measures which we would have to consider at appropriate times.

Mr Speaker, I just have one supplementary question for the Minister. From the bilateral talks and discussions, both official and non-official, does the Minister sense that the Malaysian government is sincere in resolving the various bilateral issues between the two countries on a win-win basis?

Thank you, Mr Singh. It is a salient question, but actually, more complicated than it sounds. First of all, we start on the basis that we are two sovereign nations. But we are two sovereign nations with a complicated history and, therefore, we must always expect problems to arise. We must never be surprised by problems. They will arise and, as I said just now, the only question is how we approach these problems and, as to the point behind the Member's question, the spirit behind our attempts to resolve this problem.

When dealing with foreign policy, I find it very useful to clearly separate in my mind national interest from personal ties and personal relationships. Let me explain. In the case of Singapore, our top, paramount imperative is to protect our sovereignty and independence, and our national interests. Our second imperative is to abide by international law. Our third imperative is to fully honour all agreements which we have solemnly entered into. Because, after all, if you do not honour past agreements, what value do future agreements have? It is only after you settle these three things – national interests, international law, and abiding by agreements – then the individuals, the Ministers, the officials and the agencies come into it.

I would like to share with Members a discussion which I had with Minister Azmin last night. We both concluded that it is important that Ministers and officials keep the attitude of trying to solve problems, not aggravate them, not make them worse. Specifically, to the Member's question, I can quite confidently state for the record that in all my interactions with Minister Saifuddin and Minister Azmin, I have found them to be sincere, constructive, helpful, and I believe both of them. I hope they also reflect a larger body of opinion within Malaysia. Understand that the long-term interest of Singapore and Malaysia is best secured by working together, resolving differences, expanding areas of collaboration, and looking for new things that we can do.

One point which I also discussed with Minister Azmin who is, as Members know, in charge of economic affairs, I said, look, the world is changing at such a rapid manner. We need to focus on updating, upscaling, transforming our economies and working together, and not be caught using unnecessary bandwidth fighting unnecessary conflicts.

So sorry to give the Member a long answer. But my short answer to the Member is that as far as the two whom I have interacted most intensively with, the answer is yes. I do detect sincerity on their part. But never, never make the mistake of assuming that personal ties can be a replacement for national interests, international law or complying with agreements.

So, we always aim for good interpersonal ties, we always talk about friendship between countries. But remember that friendship between countries is to advance national interest. You never compromise national interest in order to have better relations. So, it is a discipline which I always maintain in all my relations with my counterparts. I am pretty sure if you spoke to Minister Saifuddin or Minister Azmin, they would say something pretty much the same. And I do my best to make sure I am never the cause, the source of a problem. I try to be helpful.

Minister, I applaud Singapore's approach in taking a calm, sensible approach to the problems. But one of the things that causes me great concern is that there definitely have been very constructive sounds coming out of MFA, and after the meeting on 8 January 2019 with Minister Saifuddin, there was a commitment to de-escalate. Yet, less than two days after that, five vessels came into our waters. Shortly after that, the Johor Mentri Besar came in. So, it may well be that the Minister's counterparts are sincere, but does that reflect the entire Malaysian government?

If they are not able to properly control or represent the rest of the Malaysian government, what can Singapore do in the event we get further intrusions into our waters or airspace? Obviously, one option is bilateral discussions, which we are doing. But if one side is being sincere, and the other side is not, or is not able to follow through with actions, what can we do? I would be grateful for the Minister's thoughts.

Thank you. In popular parlance, it is called "good cop, bad cop". We do not play those sorts of things. I cannot speak for Malaysia, but I can speak for Singapore. I always say the same thing to all my counterparts that Singapore does not have the luxury of saying different things to different people. In any case, we believe it is this reputation for consistency and constancy that adds to our reputation of reliability and integrity. So, that is the way we deal. Sometimes, it may come across as we are boringly consistent, and we seem to studiously avoid chest-thumping and other manifestations of nationalism. But I would submit that this is the appropriate posture for a small, tiny nation-state like Singapore. Not that we are passive, not that we give in, but consistency.

Now, specifically, dealing with a counterpart or another country which may not obey the same conventions and rules. In the case of the recent intrusion by the Johor Menteri Besar, in fact, he did that the day after the bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Saifuddin, and as I said just now, is completely against the spirit of the meeting and against the spirit of the agreements. Could we just let it pass in the name of, well, we just had a successful meeting, we are getting along, let us not sour that? No, the answer is we cannot just let it pass. We had to take action. That is why we had to postpone the meeting of the 14th Joint Ministerial Committee for Iskandar Malaysia.

So, my point is, do not take Singapore's consistency, and some would say even predictability, for granted. We will always take appropriate measures to safeguard our interests, and any country dealing with Singapore must not assume that it is cost-free to embark on any adventures or antics against us. There will be consequences. So, I hope Members appreciate this fine line that I am trying to follow, to be resolute, but to be calm, to quietly but clearly protect our interests. It does not mean we do not have sharp elbows. And sometimes, if we have to do it, we will do so. But again, as I said, it is still early days, so let us see how this evolves.

The other point I would make, especially for younger Singaporeans, is that the nature of the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore will always be unique and special. And we must never be surprised, both at the upside and the downside. It is, in psychological parlance, what you would call an “emotionally labile” relationship. We must not be caught surprised or flat-footed about it. I believe we should not aggravate the emotional angst but, at the same time, we must also firmly protect our interests and to tell the other side that there will be consequences for actions that are taken against Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Singaporeans treasure the close relationship with Malaysia. Many Singapore companies employ Malaysians, and they are essential for us doing business. Singaporeans also love to go to Malaysia for sightseeing and to shop and dine. Last month, Minister Shanmugam said that Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers had worked their guts out to clear the crowds at the Causeway so that Singaporeans can pass through the checkpoint better. So, in the midst of these sea and air disputes, what is the message that we want to send to Singaporeans to help to manage this relationship better?

Maybe that is something the Member should express rather than me.

Mr Speaker, I add my voice to commend the firm, measured response so far. And Malaysia has certainly provided Singaporeans with a valuable national education lesson. However, amongst some Singaporeans, there is confusion. Because provocation after provocation, so far, what we seem to be doing is, every time something happens, we say, "Don't do it again." We are firm about it, but then it happens again, and we say, "Don't do it again."

Dozens of red lines may have been crossed. To use the same popular parlance that the Minister had used earlier, will there be a point in time that this good cop has to be a bit of a bad cop, for our northern neighbours to understand clearer and beyond doubt that any further provocation will be met with an equal reaction on our part?

That is another very good question, which requires an answer. But I hope that Members also appreciate that as the Foreign Minister, by definition, there are some things which I cannot say and I should not say. But I want to clear up this confusion that they are the ones who have the licence to provoke and that we respond, but without an equal and opposite response. Newton's Third Law in Diplomacy. Let me try to address it then, at several levels.

The first level starts domestically. We need to maintain unity of purpose, consensus and a collective spirit to stand united. Because what if that domestic consensus is eroded or broken? My words will carry no weight in any international negotiations. That is one.

The second, maybe the Member should ask Minister Ng Eng Hen tomorrow. But I have already said and I only have one sentence on the SAF. But to say Total Defence and our investment over decades in the SAF make a big difference; it makes a big difference. There are some incidents which I cannot relate today. But simply knowing that we have a credible and strong SAF again makes diplomacy much easier.

Third, in the spirit of candidness, sincerity and openness, we are trying to resolve these issues, because, in fact, for the specific issues that have been raised, I can see a way forward to resolve all of them. And so long as there is a possibility, a probability of resolving it, then our current tack of making sure the situation remains calm and that we do not allow the situation to escalate out of hand into what I described just now as a downward spiral of measures and countermeasures, it is still the appropriate thing to do.

Fourth, I also said that despite our attempts to be constructive and to keep the avenue open for a negotiated settlement, our neighbours must not believe that they can take actions without impact, without consequences on themselves. So, I am not going to enumerate them now. But this concept that for every action you take there are consequences, we will do so quietly but effectively. It is the usual Singaporean way. So, that is where we are at.

Red lines are not something you draw lightly and not something which you should pronounce publicly without having carefully thought through all the consequences and without communicating those considerations clearly and unambiguously to the person you are negotiating with on the other side. And I hope Members of this House and Singaporeans will understand that some of these are best conducted behind-the-scenes, quietly, and that is why I do not believe in megaphone diplomacy.

Mr Speaker, earlier on, the Minister mentioned about Singapore honouring our agreements. Indeed, Singapore more than honoured our agreements on many occasions; just last week, we supplied an additional six million gallons per day (mgd) of treated water to Johor state. I want to ask the Minister whether the Johor authorities appreciate what Singapore had done and, if not, should we look at reviewing the terms again on how we supply treated water to Johor?

Minister Heng Swee Keat has reminded me to tell Members that this additional assistance is over and above the agreement. But the Member has brought up an important issue, water, and the Water Agreement. I have stated our position several times in this House. To us, the 1962 Water Agreement is sacrosanct. Why is it sacrosanct? It is because this agreement was guaranteed by both governments. In the case of Malaysia, at the federal level, and in our case, the Singapore level, at the point of Independence. It remains one of the key appendices to our Declaration of Independence. That is why, it is, in that sense, sacrosanct. But even beyond that, beyond Independence, it is a foundational principle of Singapore's operating system, that we fully honour all agreements that we enter into.

Now, specifically for water, apart from the issue of the price of raw water and the price of treated water, which are stipulated in the agreement, the volume of water that Singapore is obliged to sell to Malaysia, in fact, is only five mgd, strictly speaking, 2% of 250 mgd. But the Member has quite rightly pointed out that, actually, in practice, for quite some time and, in fact, if you ask Minister Masagos today how much water he is supplying to Malaysia, he will tell you 16 mgd. That is 11 mgd more than what the Water Agreement provides for. Why do we do it? We do so out of goodwill. We do not do it because of an imposition from the Water Agreement. We do it out of goodwill. And out of goodwill, we have also priced the additional treated water at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons, which everyone knows is a subsidised price. So, again, I want to make these two points. We have been religiously observant of our obligations. Yes, we have done additional things out of goodwill. We hope this goodwill will be reciprocated.