Singapore High Commission's letter to Utusan Malaysia

This attitude is the crux of the problem. Since separation in 1965, Singapore and Malaysia have been two sovereign countries, whose relations must be based on equality and mutual respect.

The legal rights of the two parties, and legally binding agreements solemnly concluded by them, must be respected. Cooperation must be win-win; it cannot be unequal or deferential.

Mr Gamal raised the issue of Malaysia's rail Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facility in Singapore. Both countries have been discussing this matter for many years.

In 1990, Malaysia signed the Points of Agreement to move the railway station away from Tanjong Pagar, and to jointly develop the Tanjong Pagar site.

When Singapore built our Woodlands Train Checkpoint (WTCP), Malaysia agreed to co-locate its rail CIQ together with ours at Woodlands.

Then in 1997, Malaysia suddenly changed its mind without giving any reasons. But how could Malaysia insist on continuing its immigration clearance at the Tanjong Pagar Station, after Singapore had relocated its CIQ to WTCP?

This would be without legal basis. Moreover, the sequence of clearance would be illogical and contrary to international practice. Surely Singapore Immigration must clear departing passengers for exit from Singapore, before Malaysian Immigration can clear them for entry into Malaysia? On the Clob issue, Singapore had taken detailed legal advice. Malaysia's actions against Clob were inconsistent with its WTO obligations, under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause of the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (Gats).

Malaysia's continuing refusal to migrate the Clob shares went against Malaysian public law, as well as the legally binding CDP-Scans agreement signed by the two stock exchanges in September 1998 to effect the migration.

When two nations have different views on an issue, the impartial and objective solution is to refer the dispute for arbitration at the WTO and in the courts. This is the international practice.

How could Singapore possibly 'shame' Malaysia, if Malaysia was confident of its legal position, and Clob was indeed an 'illicit', 'illegal' activity?

Fortunately, the Clob issue has now been resolved amicably and comprehensively. On water, Mr Gamal stated that 'man can live without food for many days, but cannot last a day without water', and that 'we have compromised enough; now is the time for Singapore to receive an ultimatum from us'.

Indeed Singapore is exploring other alternatives for the supply of water, including desalination.

Singapore is not trying to exploit Malaysia, by buying water cheaply from it. But we hope to reach a new agreement on the supply of water to Singapore, as one of several bilateral issues to be resolved together.

In December 1998, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad had proposed, and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had accepted, that the two countries negotiate and resolve bilateral issues including water, CIQ, Clob, POA, air space and CPF as one package.

Unfortunately, complications developed when the senior officials met. The Malaysian officials set aside agreements reached by the two prime ministers in their earlier meetings and made new demands.

Singapore continues to believe that both countries will benefit through a win-win comprehensive solution of the outstanding issues.

But if a deal is not possible, let us move on with our bilateral relations, and not let an acrimonious negotiation sour relations between us.

I would be grateful if you could reproduce my letter in full in your paper so as to keep readers informed."