Made some comments on TOC's article : Judging the Judiciary
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Been writing a few responses on the issue of Singapore Malaysia relations and the water agreement between the two country.
My reply there was drawn heavily from the MFA's FAQ on the matter :
(posting the chunk here, as MFA's linking seems to be frequently broken - not quite the standard I would expect of it.)
Water
The most recent comment is posted on Endoh's Dungeon :
I feel that
It could have been a matter of bitter regret for him that his stewardship of Malaysia ended with Singapore leading in most of the areas that the two countries is competing in; with him fading into obscurity and much of his influence over UNMO weakened.
In port and shipping Mahathir did pull off a coup by drawing Maersk and Evergreen away from PSA to the Johor Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP). With the participation of the two shipping giants, PTP did very well and currently stand as a strong competitor to our PSA.
If the Causeway is demolished, shipping could then go across the straits between the two countries in a shorter route without passing around
There was much talk that accuses Mahathir of vested interests in the construction of a new bridge. Perhaps he have made promises to various parties and there is probably much money to be made from such a project – in the same manner that BN have been handling most of their Mega Projects. But I do not believe that Mahathir’s sole and primary intent was to plunder
In my opinion, it is probably a mixture of interest that steers Mahathir’s rhetoric’s on the matter of replacing the Causeway – not just greed, but hope and pride – the hope that with a new shipping route the PTP could outshine PSA and stand proud as a shining legacy of Mahathir for
My reply there was drawn heavily from the MFA's FAQ on the matter :
(posting the chunk here, as MFA's linking seems to be frequently broken - not quite the standard I would expect of it.)
Water
Q. Why can't Singapore be more reasonable and pay a little more for the sake of neighbourliness and good bilateral relations?
A. The water dispute is not about money but Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore's independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.
The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.
Notwithstanding the fact that Malaysia has lost the right to a price review under the Water Agreements, Singapore was prepared to pay more for current water, in exchange for an assured future supply of water after 2061 and in the context of a package deal for resolving outstanding bilateral issues.
Q. How and in what way has Malaysia been twisting and turning during the negotiations?
A. The documents released in Parliament show clearly that Malaysia has repeatedly changed its mind on the price of water and shifted the goal posts whenever we were close to an agreement. They first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, they increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Later they increased their demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. This is a 200-fold increase! The Malaysians also refused to discuss future water supplied to Singapore until 2059, two years before the 1962 Water Agreement runs out.
In Dec 98, Malaysia requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. But Malaysia's constant flip-flops in position made it hard to reach any agreement. Finally, it became clear Malaysia did not want to sell future water to Singapore. They even unilaterally called off the package approach. So there was nothing left to negotiate.
Q. Didn't the Water Agreements provide for a price review after 25 years? If so, why cannot Malaysia ask for a review now?
A. Malaysia has lost its legal right to a price review under the Water Agreements. The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it would not benefit them at that time.
Q. Is it true Singapore is "profiteering" by buying raw water cheap from Malaysia and selling treated water to Malaysia at a high price?
A. No, on the contrary, we are selling treated water cheap to Malaysia and Malaysia is reselling that to Malaysians for a big profit.
The arithmetic is quite simple. For every 1000 gallons of water:
Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water
Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents
Singapore pays 3 sen for raw water, but the real cost to us for raw water is much higher because we pay for all the construction costs to build the reservoirs, dams and pipeworks to bring the water to Singapore.
On the other hand, Malaysia makes money from the treated water they buy from us. Each day, Malaysia buys 37 million gallons of treated water. This means that we lose to Malaysia RM70,000 a day for treated water, and Johor makes a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought cheaply from us. That's a profit of RM47 million each year!
Q. Is it true the Water Agreements and the low price of 3 sen were all "fixed by the British" in 1927, working in favour of Singapore as Malaysia has claimed?
A. No. The 1927 Water Agreement did not cover the price of water supplied to Singapore. So it is absolutely wrong to say that the 3 sen price was fixed by the British who "favoured" Singapore. The price was set under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements signed by the Johor State Government and the Singapore City Council. By then, Malaya was already an independent nation, and Singapore had achieved self-government. It is absurd to suggest that the Federal Government of an independent and sovereign Malaya would have allowed the Johor State Government to be manipulated by the British to sign an agreement that was against Malaya's national interests.
Q. What about Malaysia's claim that Singapore is "underpaying" Johor for raw water because Hong Kong buys water from China at RM8 per 1,000 gallons?
A. This is like comparing apples with oranges. Hong Kong pays China RM8, but in turn, China pays for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the reservoirs and the water pipes to deliver the water to Hong Kong. Singapore, on the other hand, pays for all these costs. Over the years, Singapore has spent over S$1 billion on such projects, and continues to pay for their upgrading and maintenance. Malaysia did not have to spend a cent.
Q. What is the dispute with Malaysia over Pedra Branca all about?
A. The dispute arose in 1979, when Malaysia for the first time published a new map which claimed the island. Prior to that, Singapore had occupied and exercised full sovereignty over the island for more than 150 years since the 1840s without any protest from Malaysia. Previous Malaysian maps, even as late as 1974, showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.
Q. Why did Singapore and Malaysia decide to put the dispute on Pedra Branca before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?
A. In 1981, both Singapore and Malaysia agreed that the ownership of Pedra Branca be resolved through an exchange of documents. However, Malaysia did not respond when Singapore informed Malaysia that we were ready to exchange documents. In 1989, Singapore then proposed to resolve Malaysia's claim through the ICJ process. Malaysia agreed to this in 1994 and both countries settled on the text of a Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to the ICJ in 1998. Malaysia did not make any serious attempt to pursue the signing and ratification of the Special Agreement to start the process until 2003.
Q. What is the current status of the Pedra Branca case?
A. On 6 February 2003, the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore signed the Special Agreement to submit the dispute to the ICJ. Having regard to the terms of the Special Agreement, the ICJ ordered each side to submit three rounds of written pleadings. These were submitted in March 2004, January 2005 and November 2005, respectively. Having decided in May 2006 that no further written pleadings were required and the written phase of the proceedings was closed, the ICJ has since informed the parties that the oral proceedings will take place from 6 - 23 November 2007.
Why is Singapore chasing away Malaysian vessels from Pedra Branca? Does Malaysia not have a right to patrol at Pedra Branca before the ICJ's ruling?
A. Singapore has exercised exclusive control and sovereignty of Pedra Branca since the 1840s. This is the status quo. Until Malaysia's claim is decided by the ICJ, the status quo must remain.
Malaysia took the same position against Indonesian naval intrusions during the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute. In that case, Malaysia took the position that as it was in possession of the islands, the status quo should prevail. However, Malaysia has taken a contradictory position on the Pedra Branca issue by disregarding the status quo and intruding into Singapore waters.
Q. What is this talk of war over the unresolved bilateral issues?
A. It was started by Malaysian leaders and media. Such loose talk of war is irresponsible and dangerous. It whips up emotions that could become difficult to control.
Singapore wants to have good relations with Malaysia. There is much that both countries can gain by working together. Our common interests far exceed our differences.
Q. What next, now that the talks have reached an impasse?
A. It is in the interest of both countries to settle our differences through negotiations. However, as it is clear that we cannot expect renewal of water supply after 2061, the basis for future negotiations on water no longer exists. We are ready to have the dispute resolved through arbitration according to the laws of Johor, as provided for by the two Water Agreements.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
An internet offensive - The Online Citizen under seige
Since the demise of the old Sintercom website, there have been a scarcity of websites with decent Singaporean political discourse.
In recent times The Online Citizen have came across to me as a website with in-depth analysis of various government policies / statements. There's a perceptible oppposition slant, but they do try hard to back their criticism with research and I give them props for their efforts.
------
In the last few days there have been multiple accusations floating on Singabloodypore, soc.culture.singapore and La Nausee etc that TOC have been compromised with "PAP Moles", and that the website have somehow been hijacked and controlled secretly by the PAP.
Personally, I feel that the accusations are all hogwash.
PAP paying people to criticise itself in a credible matter, with the criticism backed by research than by mindless ranting? Pardon my lack of imagination, but I think that it is far easier to link the accusers to conspiracy than the TOC itself.
My comments on one of the websites linked to the accusers - the Wayang Party :
"Came to this site after reading all the accusations against the TOC at La Nausee.
In recent times The Online Citizen have came across to me as a website with in-depth analysis of various government policies / statements. There's a perceptible oppposition slant, but they do try hard to back their criticism with research and I give them props for their efforts.
------
In the last few days there have been multiple accusations floating on Singabloodypore, soc.culture.singapore and La Nausee etc that TOC have been compromised with "PAP Moles", and that the website have somehow been hijacked and controlled secretly by the PAP.
Personally, I feel that the accusations are all hogwash.
PAP paying people to criticise itself in a credible matter, with the criticism backed by research than by mindless ranting? Pardon my lack of imagination, but I think that it is far easier to link the accusers to conspiracy than the TOC itself.
My comments on one of the websites linked to the accusers - the Wayang Party :
"Came to this site after reading all the accusations against the TOC at La Nausee.
Like I commented there, why is the editor of wayangparty insisting that the staff of TOC publish complete disclosure on their entire personal history when there is zero disclosure on this website to begin with? Clicking ‘about us’ on this blog gives me zero information about how many people are behind this blog, and who they are and what have they done before.
This wayangparty websites hoists the anti government flag and yet proceeds to attack the strongest opposition party, the Workers Party - even the name of this blog could be interpreted as an attack on the workers party.
If we were to follow the same line of reasoning that was used to attack the TOC, should we not ask for the identities of the owners of this blog, and speculate wildly whether they are in the payroll of the PAP, and what secret agenda this website have in the first place?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
When the integrity of our judiciary is being judged by Singaporeans and foreign observers alike, it is even more important to handle the case in an impartial and neutral stance - so that observers can note the lack of prejudice or bias.
I felt that the conduct of the case, and the subsequent follow up actions failed to clear the doubts on the independence of our courts; and this failure is the loss of our judiciary, and the loss of Singapore.
Chee was never a real threat to begin with - the baggage of various mistakes has shattered any mainstream credibility he possessed when he first started. With Chee’s temperament, give him enough rope and he would have hung himself on the court of public opinion, and the judiciary would have come out smelling like roses.
Instead, we have senior government leaders stooping to exchange insults; and we have to kick a person when he’s down and on the floor – applying heavy fines to an already bankrupt to help him rouse public sympathy.
Let’s rope in the mass media too to vilify Chee too since we are at it – does anyone really think that Chua Lee Hoong’s article will persuade converts to condemn Chee? Or will her article provoke an adverse and opposite effect similar to the backlash to the establishment by the overkill on the James Gomez during the election form incident?
My impression is that our leaders are sorely lacking from lessons in subtlety. A nudge, some careful restrain and a step back at appropriate times will often reap more returns than blind headlong charges capitalizing solely on force superiority.