Transcript of Press Conference by Professor Tommy Koh, Agent of the Government of Singapore for the Reclamation Issue and Mrs Cheong Koon Hean, Deputy Secretary (Special Duties), Ministry Of National Development on Tuesday, 26 Apr 2005

Transcript of Press Conference by Professor Tommy Koh, Agent of the Government of Singapore for the Reclamation Issue and Mrs Cheong Koon Hean, Deputy Secretary (Special Duties), Ministry Of National Development at the MFA Function Room on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 at 12.05 - 12.35pm

Opening Remarks

Prof Koh:

Ladies and Gentlemen

1 Welcome to this press conference by the Singapore delegation. My colleague Mrs Cheong Koon Hean and I would be very happy to respond to your questions. If we are unable to answer your questions, we will turn to our other colleagues who are seated amongst you. I am very proud to say that the Singapore team consists of colleagues who come from many ministries (such as) MFA, MND, MEWR and they also come from many agencies. I want to thank each and every one of them for their contributions. I want to also say that it is very seldom that you find people from different professions being able to work harmoniously. But in this case I am very proud of the fact that our biologists were able to work with our engineers, and our biologists and engineers were able to work with our lawyers and diplomats. It's a rare display of inter-disciplinary cooperation and I am very proud of all of them.

2 Second, I want to pay a sincere tribute to our Malaysian colleagues. I want to single out for special praise three members of the Malaysian delegation: my counterpart Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi, the Agent of Malaysia; the Attorney-General of Malaysia, Tan Sri Gani, and the Director-General of the Department of Environment, Dato' Hajah Rosnani. It is quite remarkable that at the end of a three-year journey, which began with acrimonious complaints and then, followed by negotiations, court proceedings and back to the negotiating table, the friendship, good will, and mutual respect between the members of the two delegations have actually increased at the end of this journey.

3 Third, Singapore is happy with the outcome of this matter because:

a One, the joint study ordered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) resulted in a unanimous Report by the group of independent experts. This reflected very well on the four experts, who were able to work in a collegial fashion and in a very professional manner. I want to take this occasion to join the distinguished Foreign Minister of Malaysia in thanking them and thanking DHI as well.

b Two, it is good news for both Malaysia and Singapore that after their 13-month study, the experts have found that Singapore's reclamation works, contrary to some fears expressed earlier, have not caused any serious impact. Of the 57 impacts identified by the experts, they found that 40 of them could be detected only in the computer model, but not likely to be detectable out in the field. And of the remaining 17 impacts, they suggested mitigating measures which would eliminate them. The happy news, of course, is that the two delegations were able to agree on the appropriate way in which these recommendations would be implemented.

c Three, the joint study's recommendations have enabled the two delegations to reach an amicable settlement, and I quote the words used by the two Foreign Ministers, a settlement that is both "fair and balanced". Our settlement was arrived at in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill, taking into account the interests and concerns of the two sides.

d Finally, Malaysia and Singapore have agreed to terminate the arbitration proceedings that Malaysia started in July 2003. Singapore will continue with its reclamation works both at Tekong and at Tuas. However, in recognition of the fact that the Straits of Johor is a shared body of water, and that both sides have an interest in this body of water, the two sides have agreed to continue to inform and consult the other through the two existing mechanisms that Foreign Minister Syed Hamid referred to, the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Committee on the Environment and in the case of navigational issues, the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore-Johor Port Authority Operational Meeting. The only change we have made is that it will be co-chaired, on the Malaysian side, by a representative of the federal, rather than the Johor Port Authority.

4 My conclusion is that this settlement is a happy milestone in Singapore-Malaysia bilateral relations. I believe that, given our proximity and close interaction, issues will, from time to time arise, that require that we address them. I think that the amicable way in which our two delegations have been able to resolve their differences augurs well for the future of Malaysia-Singapore bilateral relations.

Those were my opening remarks, and Mrs Cheong would be happy to take your questions. (laughter)

Question and Answer Session

Q1: S Ramesh (Channel News Asia): At the end of the day, at the end of this dispute, are there any winners or losers on either side?

A1: Prof Koh: I'm sure I speak for my good friend and colleague, Tan Sri Fuzi, when I say that both Singapore and Malaysia have won. We won because we have been able to find an amicable solution that accommodates the essential interests of both countries, and we've done it in a spirit of friendship and goodwill. So the happy headline I want to see in tomorrow's newspapers is that both Malaysia and Singapore have won.

Q2: Yvonne Gomez, (Radio Singapore International): Prof Koh, Mrs Cheong, I just have a technical question. I refer to the colour diagram that we were provided with (in the media kit). According to Part I (of the SA), we're going to have this "nose" and a "bite". I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly, and I'm the first to admit that I don't know how to read it, but there's a port limit line [Note: Singapore Port Limit] that seems to be going through it, it seems to me that we're cutting into the "bite" and adding to the "nose" while it's still within our own maritime boundaries? And also there's an extension to the Changi Finger, could you also say something about that?

A2: Mrs Cheong: Okay, let me explain. It's just like a fairy tale, the "bite" and the "nose". Basically, for Area D (in the simplified diagram) we will take a "bite", which means that the reclamation cuts in a little bit so that the Calder Harbour area can be wider. Once that area is wider, the current, the water here has more space to flow through, so the experts feel that that will help to return the currents more or less to the original speeds. But the experts recognise that Singapore needs to reclaim land because it needs land, so they have recommended the growth of a "nose" to make up for the land that is lost in taking the "bite". Basically the reclamation goes on, it is a streamlining of the profile, but it is all kept within the Port Limits of Singapore. So yes, you are right, we will still reclaim all entirely within Singapore waters.

When we reclaimed Changi East many years ago, I think for the airport, there is this little portion like a jetty, an outcrop, called Changi Finger. When we reclaim the entire Pulau Tekong profile area, that channel will be slightly narrower. So the experts suggest that for Changi Finger, in order to make sure the currents are streamlined, and there is no 'eddy'-, they suggest that we just round it off. Once we round it off, then that problem disappears. There is no navigational safety concern there, but the experts say, why don't you just round it off. And eventually, in the long term, Changi Finger won't be like this in any case because there will be future reclamation in Changi.

Q3: Lydia Lim, (Straits Times): Could you please clarify Datuk Seri Syed Hamid's comment just now about both sides having agreed to resolve the maritime boundary delimitation issues through negotiations?

A3: Prof Koh: One of the items in the Malaysian Statement of Claim is a claim to an area called "Point 20", and around that area there is a sector where the maritime boundaries have not been negotiated between the two countries. The two delegations decided not to deal with the issue in this negotiation. So we both agreed that this will be taken up subsequently, in other negotiations. In the meantime, both sides recognise that neither side has given up any rights they have under international law or their right to resort to other peaceful means of settling this outstanding dispute.

Q4: P. Suryanarayana, (The Hindu): What was the trick, actually? Was it the political will or the sudden realisation that the technical parameters were not difficult to handle, that allowed the settlement agreement to happen?

A4: Prof Koh: I think that, as Foreign Minister George Yeo said, that in the last one and a half years, there is a new atmosphere in the bilateral relations between our two countries. And I think this good atmosphere has helped the work of the two delegations. I think there is also, at the highest level of our two Governments, a new spirit of wishing to seek accommodation of each other's interests in a manner that serves our mutual benefit and cooperation. So I would give credit to our political leaders, I give credit to the new atmosphere that we have seen in the last one and a half years. It would be too arrogant, you know, if the officials claim that it was due to their good work, so I would not make this claim. But we have taken advantage of this window of opportunity and worked very hard.

Prof Koh: Any other questions? From our Malaysian colleagues?

Q5: Yvonne Gomez (RSI): If no one else, then I'll ask another one, again based on the Agreement. Why are we compensating Malaysian fishermen, I mean, can you say something a bit about (whether) the studies had found that we need to compensate Malaysian fishermen for their losses as the result of the reclamation?

A5a: Mrs Cheong: If you look at the whole Settlement Agreement, you have to take it holistically. This is a very complicated study, and in fact as Professor Koh has said, from both sides there have been so many different experts, and I must say that we can't agree on everything. We look at the study and for Singapore, it's not every part of the study that we can agree 100% with. If you ask my Malaysian colleagues, they would probably tell you the same thing. But at the end of the day, we agreed that we need to find a very balanced way of settling the problem, and then we say let's take the whole thing holistically.

For the fishermen issue, I think Malaysia has always contended that their fishermen were having problems fishing. Our view is that the findings are not that conclusive, because there was only one trial run. But in the spirit of settling and in the spirit of looking holistically at all the recommendations of the group of experts, Singapore agreed that, as part of the package, we will provide a lump sum settlement to some of the fishermen. The number of fishermen, etc. is really based on Malaysia's own reports and studies. So we worked out what we thought was a very fair formula, which Malaysia agreed to. And that was the way it was worked out.

So I would say try and look at the package as a package, holistically. And I think both sides found it fair and equitable. Ambassador?

A5b: Prof Koh: You need further clarification, is that fine? (YG: If you have more clarification to add...)

I just want to tell you how the amount was arrived at. The amount was arrived at by first taking the number of affected fishermen, and this is from Malaysian data. Then we look at the window, the timeframe within which they will be affected, because once we have completed the reconfiguration of Area D and the "bite", then the (current) speed will revert to the pre-reclamation speed and the problem will disappear. We have compensated the Malaysian fishermen for two things: the reduction of their fishing catch during this period; and the increased expense incurred by their boats because of the higher speed of the currents. We had a formula, we gave this formula to our Malaysian colleagues. They looked at it and they accepted the formula, and once you have an agreed formula, then arriving at a specific sum was relatively easy.

Any other questions?

Q6: Lydia Lim (Straits Times): How much did Singapore spend to settle this case?

A6: Prof Koh: I don't have the complete figures. But it's a lot of money. Just to give you an idea of how much money both of us have spent. If you look at the Group of Experts Report and the work done by the Danish consulting company, DHI-Water & Environment, the year-long study cost the two Governments Eight Million Singapore Dollars. That doesn't include all other expenses incurred by both sides. It is a very significant amount of money, so you can easily say that the two sides have incurred something over 10 million dollars... Maybe much more than that.

But bringing this to a happy conclusion, by not taking our disagreement to arbitration, which would mean another costly affair, I think we have also saved our Malaysian taxpayers and Singapore taxpayers money.

Q7: Koh Gui Qing (Reuters): I just want to ask a technical question, where would Singapore get its sand for reclamation works, because I understand that Indonesia has banned sand exports to Singapore, so would you be dredging Malaysian seas or what?

A7: Mrs Cheong: I think the point is this. We have, already in the Settlement Agreement, agreed to complete the reclamation, to refine the profile, as agreed, within a certain timeframe. We will do our best to carry this out, although in the Agreement, it is subject to the availability of resources. But the intent is to try our best to do it.

Prof Koh: Any other questions?

Q8: Bernice Han, (AFP): One of the comments that has been made several times today is the friendly atmosphere of the talks between the two countries. Would it be fair to say that relations between the two countries have never been better, or are at its best, for say the past forty years?

A8: Prof Koh: I can't say that. But I would say that the current state of bilateral relations is very good. And I think that our success in settling this one dispute hopefully will add to this good atmosphere, and will create a positive momentum for the settlement of other disputes on our bilateral agenda. But I can't say that it's the best it's been in forty years.

Q9: Lydia Lim (ST): Just wanted to get you and Mrs Cheong to tell me, after three years, what is the memory that you remember best? A nice question.

Prof Koh: (To Mrs Cheong) You go first. Tell us a happy story.

A9a Mrs Cheong: I think we all worked very hard! (Prof Koh: Is that a happy story or a sad story?!) It's factual... I think we all worked very hard.

For me, the great experience is, when it came to the study, both sides had a group of multi-disciplinary officials and it was very interesting to observe that we interacted at many different levels. The lawyers had to interact with the engineers, the marine experts, and each has really got their own area of expertise. We can be discussing an issue but then over lunch, you find that they get together to share about their areas of work. To me, that is a nice feeling, for me to observe this.

And the second thing is, we were all working very hard to come to some conclusion on the study. It was good to see everybody trying to work towards completing the study in as professional a manner as possible, to support the Group of Experts. And the other good thing was, it was my good fortune to have had Madam Hajah Rosnani as my counterpart. I must give her credit for her goodwill and cooperation and we worked well together. There were times when it was a very difficult discussion, we had breakfast together. Sometimes, it's hard to have fifty people talking together, it's easier for the two of us to have a meal, to have the time on our own. (Prof Koh: This is what I call "makan diplomacy")

And I remember a few times when we just had breakfast or a drink together to see how we could try and find a way forward for the two delegations. Hajah Rosnani and myself, as the Liaison Officers, we led two very technical teams. We are not the experts in every field, but we have to find a way to facilitate the discussions of the professionals, at a level where both sides can come to a common view and are comfortable enough to proceed. So I think that type of interaction is something I remember warmly.

A9b Prof Koh: Since there are no other questions, maybe we can end on a sweet note. So I will share two happy stories with Lydia.

My first happy story is that for the last two years, I've had the opportunity to work with an old friend - Tan Sri Ahmad Fuzi and I are friends who go back more than twenty years - but this is the first time that we have worked together on a bilateral issue as counterparts. So it has enabled, for the last two years, although we were on the opposite sides of the table, but it has reinforced our long-standing friendship.

It has also enabled me to make new Malaysian friends - for example, the Malaysian Attorney-General is a new Malaysian friend. I must say I have great admiration for him. He is a good lawyer, and he always has a very positive mindset on seeking solutions to problems. I've also had the pleasure of knowing Madam Hajah Rosnani, Professor Sharifah, Raja Nazrin and many other Malaysian friends. So my Malaysian network has expanded. I take away from this experience a bigger Malaysian network and a deeper friendship with Tan Sri Fuzi. So that's the first happy story.

My second happy story is that there were many 'firsts' at different points in this journey that I want to share with you. For example, the judgment of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) was a unanimous judgment, but more remarkable, the two ad-hoc judges appointed by Malaysia - Dr Kamal Hossain of Bangladesh and the ad-hoc judge appointed by Singapore, Professor Bernard Oxman - is that they filed a joint declaration. It's so rare, you know, that the two judges appointed by the two Governments that were contesting a case, to file a joint declaration. Another historical footnote that I want to make is that, the hearing of our case in ITLOS was a historical first because it was the first time that women appeared in that Court and spoke to the Court. And I told Professor Sharifah in private, so I might as well say it in public, that although she was speaking for Malaysia and not for Singapore, I thought she spoke lucidly and cogently, and I think Mrs Cheong did the same. So I think that women from Southeast Asia were the first women to appear before the Court in Hamburg, and I think they acquitted themselves so well, they must have left lingering memories with the twenty-one male judges of the happy state of women in Southeast Asia.

And the fact that the report of the Group of Experts, again appointed by two Governments, was unanimous, was another happy outcome. So Lydia, I take away from this at least two, but many happy memories.

So if there are no other questions, then Mrs Cheong and I would like to thank you for attending this press conference. Thank you very much.

. . . . .

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
29 APRIL 2005