MFA Press Release: Remarks in Parliament by Second Minister For Foreign Affairs in Parliament, 3 April 06

(i) REPLY BY SECOND MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS RAYMOND LIM TO QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT ON 3 APRIL 2006 ON THE TALKS WITH MALAYSIA REGARDING THE PROPOSED NEW BRIDGE ACROSS THE CAUSEWAY

Question No. 414

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide an update on the talks with Malaysia regarding the proposed new bridge across the Causeway.

REPLY:

1 Mr Speaker, Sir, bilateral negotiations on Malaysia's proposal to construct a full straight bridge to replace the Causeway are ongoing. Minister for Foreign Affairs, George Yeo has clarified Singapore's position with regard to the full straight bridge in this House on several occasions, most recently on 2 March 2006. Singapore's position remains unchanged. There are huge financial costs and no significant benefits for Singapore to construct the full straight bridge to replace the Causeway. However, in the spirit of good neighbourliness, Singapore is prepared to consider Malaysia's proposal to replace the Causeway with a full straight bridge if there is a balance of benefits for both sides.

2 Our senior officials have met five times to discuss the details of this balance of benefits. Although there have been many reports in the Malaysian media on the details of the ongoing bilateral negotiations, Singapore has adhered to the decision taken jointly by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi not to publicise the details of the ongoing negotiations. As such, I am unable to disclose any details of the discussions to this House. Suffice to say, our senior officials have had constructive discussions and they have made good progress. But there are a number of important related issues which both sides would need to discuss in further detail.

3 Singapore has been surprised by some of the remarks on the bridge issue and bilateral relations attributed to Malaysian politicians and leaders by the Malaysian media even as bilateral negotiations are still ongoing. For example, on 10 March 2006, Deputy Works Minister Datuk Mohd Zin bin Mohamed was reported to have said that Malaysia had "symbolically launched" construction works of the "scenic bridge" or half-bridge. On 11 March 2006, DPM Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak was reported in the Malaysian media as saying that Malaysia would proceed with the construction of the "scenic bridge". On the same day, Malaysian Minister of Works Datuk Samy Vellu was quoted in Bernama as saying that he had asked the contractor to continue the work without any disruption.

4 Such remarks as reported by the Malaysian media are cause for some concern as they were made even as the Senior Officials from Singapore and Malaysia were in Kuala Lumpur discussing the possibility of Singapore and Malaysia cooperating to construct a full straight bridge. Such continued public comments on Malaysia's intention to proceed with the half-bridge will not be helpful to the ongoing bilateral negotiations on the full bridge.

5 Members will remember that when Malaysian Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid and Minister George Yeo met during the MFA-Wisma Putra Games in Singapore from 4-5 February 2006, they agreed that both sides should continue with the negotiations for a full bridge. Wisma Putra had also previously clarified to us in a Third Person Note (TPN) that Malaysia remained committed to negotiations for a full bridge. However, the statements by Malaysian leaders on the construction on the 'scenic' or half-bridge contradict what Wisma Putra had earlier communicated to us. This is why Singapore has sent Malaysia several TPNs seeking clarification on Malaysia's position on the 'scenic bridge' or half-bridge. Malaysia has yet to formally reply to these TPNs.

. . . . .

(ii) REPLY BY SECOND MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS RAYMOND LIM TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT ON 3 APRIL 2006 ON SINGAPORE'S POSITION ON MALAYSIAN DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER NAJIB'S COMMENTS THAT IT IS WITHIN MALAYSIA'S RIGHT TO BUILD A BRIDGE WITHIN ITS TERRITORY AND THE IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS ON SINGAPORE IF MALAYSIA WERE TO GO AHEAD TO BUILD THE HALF-BRIDGE WITH ITS TERRITORY

Supplementary Question

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, the Malaysian DPM Najib has been quoted in the press as saying that it is within Malaysia's rights to build the scenic half-bridge within their territory. What is Singapore's position regarding this? I would also like to ask the Minister, what is the impact on and implications to Singapore if Malaysia were to go ahead to build the so-called scenic, half-bridge within its territory?

REPLY:

1 Mr Speaker, Sir, this House may be aware of reports in the Malaysian media regarding comments by Malaysian leaders, including DPM Najib, which Dr Amy Khor alluded to just now, on the continued construction of a 'half-bridge' within Malaysia's territory. Recent public comments by various Malaysian quarters reaffirm Malaysia's intention to proceed with the construction of the half-bridge and thereafter to demolish its half of the Causeway unilaterally and Malaysia claims that it has the sovereign right to do so. On 18 March 2006, the NST reported DPM Najib as saying:

"This is our right. Nobody can question or deny us this right as a sovereign nation. The Government is committed to building the bridge."

2 Singapore does not accept that Malaysia has a right to demolish its side of the Causeway unilaterally and replace it with a half-bridge. This position has been repeatedly conveyed to Malaysia via formal diplomatic channels on a number of occasions. We have taken this position not lightly but after seeking expert legal advice.

3 Any major work related to the Causeway, on which also are sited the pipelines supplying water to Singapore, would affect both Singapore and Malaysia in a variety of areas of vital importance to both countries. This is why Singapore cannot accept that Malaysia has a right to unilaterally replace its side of the Causeway with a half-bridge.

4 Members would recall that in 2003, Malaysia had applied to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to stop Singapore from undertaking reclamation works within Singapore's sovereign territory. Malaysia's actions were guided by the principle that any major work in the Johor Straits, even if done within the sovereign territory of Singapore, could affect Malaysia. Similarly, we have reminded Malaysia that any decision to demolish the Causeway has to comply with the principles enunciated in the ITLOS Order and must also be fully consistent with the requirements of international law.

5 Singapore has stated its position clearly and consistently. We hope that Malaysia will understand Singapore's concerns and position.

6 As I have mentioned, Singapore has asked Malaysia to clarify its position officially with regard to the half-bridge. In the meantime, Singapore will continue negotiating with Malaysia on a possible full bridge to replace the Causeway, based on a balance of benefits.

. . . . . .

(iii) REPLY BY SECOND MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS RAYMOND LIM TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT ON 3 APRIL 2006 ON WHETHER MALAYSIA HAS INDICATED THAT IT UNDERSTANDS AND ACCEPTS THE PRINCIPLE OF BALANCE OF BENEFITS AND IS PREPARED TO HOLD OFF ITS DECISION TO BUILD A BRIDGE UNTIL A FULL AGREEMENT IS REACHED BETWEEN BOTH SIDES

Supplementary Question

Ms Irene Ng: Sir, it is puzzling that on the one hand we have ongoing negotiations; and on the other hand we read in the papers that the Malaysian government intends to carry on to build the full bridge - the half-bridge first, and later on the full bridge regardless of Singapore's position. Can I ask the Second Minister whether in all the negotiations with Malaysia, Malaysia has indicated that it understands and accepts the principle of a balance of benefits and that it is prepared to hold off its decision to build the bridge until a full agreement is reached between both sides?

REPLY:

1 As I mentioned just now, the details of the negotiations I'm not at liberty to disclose because SM Goh and PM Abdullah Badawi have agreed, lets keep this off the media. But with regards to your point on the balance of the benefits, whether this thing has been put across and been registered to the Malaysian side, yes. In fact, when SM Goh met with PM Abdullah at early meetings on how to proceed on bilateral issues, they had agreed on two principles. One, that on the existing issues including the bridge, that it should be done with a balance of benefits, that both should have mutual benefits for both sides, and secondly, that we should not allow these old issues to hold back future cooperation. These are the two underlying principles.

. . . . .

(iv) REPLY BY SECOND MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS RAYMOND LIM TO QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT ON 3 APRIL 2006 ON BILATERAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SINGAPORE AND THAILAND IN VIEW OF THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THAILAND

Question

PQ No. 426 Mr Low Thia Khiang:To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assessment of the bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand in view of the current developments in Thailand.

REPLY:

1 Mr Speaker Sir, Singapore-Thailand relations are excellent. The relationship is longstanding and multi-faceted. The close friendship between the two countries was forged in the 1980s when Singapore stood with Thailand over the Cambodian issue. This friendship continued, stretching over decades of cooperation with successive Thai Governments. Political links are excellent at the highest level. In January 2005, President S R Nathan made the first ever State Visit to Thailand by a Singapore Head of State. President Nathan was received most graciously by the Royal Family, the Thai Government and the people of Thailand.

2 Singapore and Thailand have strong economic ties. In 2005, bilateral trade between Singapore and Thailand amounted to S$28.2 billion, an increase of almost 16% over 2004. Thailand was Singapore's 8th largest trading partner in 2005, while Singapore was Thailand's 5th largest trading partner in 2004. Singapore is also one of the top five investors in Thailand from 2003-2004.

3 Mr Speaker Sir, institutional links between the civil services are well-established under the Thailand-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP), which was mooted by then PM Goh Chok Tong and then Thai PM Chavalit Yongchaiyudh in 1997. Educational ties are also growing, with extensive teacher and student exchanges. Our cooperation at the people-to-people level is also strong. This is evident in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami disaster where Thais extended a helping hand to distressed Singaporeans. On our part, Singapore also responded swiftly in the tsunami relief efforts.

4 Against the backdrop of such excellent bilateral relations, it is unfortunate that there have been attempts by some groups in Thailand to drag Singapore into that country's internal politics. All sorts of allegations were made against Singapore and our relations with Thailand. These allegations are without basis. Where necessary, the Singapore Government will set the record straight and address gross misrepresentations.

5 Singapore is a friend of Thailand. A prosperous and peaceful Thailand is important for Singapore and ASEAN. The Singapore Government has worked hard with the various Thai Governments over the years to establish a mutually-beneficial relationship. In particular, we have encouraged our companies, including our GLCs, to seriously consider Thailand as one of its key investment options. And the Thais themselves have encouraged Singapore to invest in Thailand. This is also why Temasek went ahead with the purchase of Shin Corporation, which is a purely commercial deal.

6 We hope the Thai people will resolve their differences peacefully. This would be good for Thailand as well as for the region as a whole. I note that elections have just taken place in Thailand yesterday. We hope the elections will help in the resolution of the current situation in Thailand.

. . . . . .

(v) REPLY BY SECOND MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS RAYMOND LIM TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT ON 3 APRIL 2006 ON THE IMPACT ON SINGAPORE-THAILAND RELATIONS GIVEN CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

Supplementary Question

Mr Low Thia Khiang: So we have understood the long term good bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand. However, given the circumstances as what the Minister has described, the groups, certain groups in Thailand which are against Singapore, especially in the recent fiasco about the purchase of the Shin Corp and also leading to the burning of the poster and effigies of our Prime Minister and Mrs Lee, I wonder whether this opposition to Singapore's good relations is building up and I would like to know from the Minister what is his projection of the future bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand and how he sees the current development in which there are some groups seemingly to be getting stronger against Singapore. What is his assessment of that situation?

REPLY:

1 I think that the key thing to address first off is the point that you have brought up, which I think is an important point. What is the impact on Singapore-Thailand relations given current developments? As I said, our relationship with Thailand is a strong and durable one and I am confident that the relationship will remain strong. I believe Thai leaders and government officials understand that the relationship is mutually beneficial. It would be a disservice to present and future generations of Thais and Singaporeans to allow recent events to impact negatively on Singapore-Thailand bilateral relations. The Singapore Government will continue to work with the Thai Government to strengthen bilateral relations for the benefit of our two countries and peoples.

. . . . .