MALAYSIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

ONE OF THE AIMS OF MALAYSIA’S FOREIGN POLICY  IS TO LIVE PEACEFULLY AND MAINTAIN FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH ITS TWO IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURS ( SINGAPORE AND INDONESIA). DISCUSS ITS FEASIBILITY AND POSSIBLE INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFERENCES THAT MAY OBSTRUCT THE AIM

INTRODUCTION

Malaysia foreign policy formulated just after independent in 1957 by the first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putera Al- Haj. The historically factors such as colonisation and the important  outcome which occurred during  the period has given very significance impact towards Malaysia foreign policy. They have three important outcomes which is the confrontation with Indonesia in 1963, the argument about Sabah belonging with Philippines in the same year and the separation of Singapore in 1965. However, Tunku Abdul Rahman and the government body have decided the aim of Malaysia foreign policy. Even if not clearly stated but from various policies  which was implemented in the era, Azizi Ahmad (   ) has attracted three main aim of the policy. Firstly is to be known as an independence state with own government and sovereignty. Second is to gain the security for the people and willing to defend the nation from any aggressor and lastly is to have good relationship with the neighbouring country in order to upgrade the mutual understanding.

            After 52 years of independence and lead by five Prime Ministers, the fundamental aim of Malaysia Foreign Policy has not change but has undergone some major changes in her policy formulation and implementation, particularly in dealing with ASEAN countries. Base on the ASEAN spirit and positive concept such as Prosper Thy Neighbour, Malaysia manage to settle differences, misunderstanding, and problem with her neighbours diplomatically. In the case of the most closes neighbour which is Indonesia and Singapore, both countries enjoy a healthy bilateral relations based on mutual respect in the spirit of good neighborliness. The warm and cordial relations was sustained through constant exchanges of visits at all level from the Prime Minister to people to people contacts between both countries. The leadership of both countries has also taken efforts to enhance people to people contact between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. How ever there are some problems that remained unsolved and each member states involved are not willing to withdraw their claims such as the border problem, the overlapping claim on the Spratlys  Island, the immigrants issues and others. These unresolved problems might posed as possible insurmountable differences which will obstruct Malaysia foreign policy aim. Therefore, this paper will dicuss the four important points. They are to define the understanding on the two aims, to discus the feasibility and possible insurmountable differences and to analyse its possibility in near future.

DEFINITION

Live Peaceful

To live peacefully become the most important in every nation state foreign policy objectives. It is a responsible of the ruler or government to make sure the peoples in the country live peacefully between them. Any issues which seen as an obstacle to  achieve such aim must be solve immediately. According to Sodiq Yushau (2009) in his research on Nigerian, he defined Live Peaceful as  “…to work relentlessly with open minds and sincere hearts for the unity of the nation. This great hope of unity and peaceful coexistence is a dream that can be achieved. It is time to sow the seeds of unity…”. Therefore, ‘work relentlessly’ can consider one of the elements in the concept of ‘live peacefully’. However, Brubaker (2008) described that live peacefully in a great ‘world house’ required every members of the family must learn somehow to live with each other in peace. The members should re-establish the moral ends of our lives in personal character and social justice. In both definition, live peaceful can be describe as the good relation among the people in the country.

Friendly Neighbours

In international relation, friendly neighbours can be defining as comfortable relationship between two separate identities such as state. The friendly neighbours always indicate by distance and the state behaviour toward another state. Therefore, any state which closer to the state it considers as a neighbour. The term of friendly or unfriendly is the product of state behaviour. The states that do not respect other state interest will be considered unfriendly. However, according Vihma (2009), friendly neighbours is states that give a respect on UN nation requirements such as respect the other states sovereignty.

MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA RELATIONS

Background

The historical linkage between the two within the Malay Archipelago can be dated back to the pre-colonial age. And also, the geo-political and socio-economic elements speak a lot for their relations. They are not only geographically connected but also closely tied with each other in economy. The conflicting understanding between two countries is not a new phenomena. It statretd during The formation of Malaysia, proposed by Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj in 1963 to include North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore, prompted President Soekarno of Indonesia to announce in 1964 a policy of ‘Confrontation’; a policy to bring down the new state by military means. Soekarno accused Tunku as being a ‘puppet’ of the British in the latter’s neo-colonialist plot. Soekarno strongly felt that the formation of Malaysia was the idea of British. He perceived that the move was to expand the territorial of Malaya, which become a threat to Indonesia. Soekarno’s  policy of Confrontation and his remarked ‘Ganyang Malaysia’ immediately sparked bilateral tension between the two countries. However, in the years after the end of Confrontation, Indonesian and Malaysian relations improved as both governments became committed to development and cooperation in ASEAN.  Malaysia and Indonesia made serious efforts and attempts to accelerate bilateral relationship.

CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURE (CBM)

Malaysia and Indonesia bilateral relationship was formally established way back in 1957 when Malaysia set up it’s embassy in the republic on 10 October 1957.  Although Malaysia and Indonesia land borders only existed in the Borneo, bordering Malaysia’s Sabah and Sarawak with Indonesia’s Kalimantan, much of both nations’ maritime boundaries overlap each other in many areas.  Based on long historical and cultural ties, together with many common good and interests, both countries have intensive bilateral arrangements. Despite some unresolved issues and newly emerged matters, both countries have been enjoying warm and cordial relations.

Security Cooperation 

In the context of security cooperation, Malaysia-Indonesia initiated its first security cooperation through the border cooperation ties under the 1966 Bangkok Agreement.  This marked the first joint operations against communist insurgency in the border areas of both countries.  Border Security Agreement pursued in 1972.  The scopes of border cooperation were later redefined and broaden to include smugglers, drug traffickers and counterfeiters not only at the land borders but also to include its maritime borders.  Joint Indonesia Malaysia Boundary Committee (JIMB) and the General Border Committee (GBC) are the formal bodies dealing with matters pertaining to border security issues and settlement of boundary disputes.

The first combined operation code named Seri Aman in 1974, future security measures under the auspices border committees was further enhanced through the creation of Coordinated Operations Central Committee (COCC) in 1987.  Ex Kekar Malindo an army’s annual exercises had shifted its’ focus from counter-insurgency to a more conventional warfare and defence tactics. Tatar Malindo and Kirpura Malindo exercises were later launched.  Sister services, the navy conducted Malindo Jaya naval exercises while the air forces were involved in Elang Malindo air exercises.  The ultimatum of these series of exercises is the combined joint exercise between the two countries Armed Forces called Malindo Darsasa since 1982 till the present day.   The extent of military cooperation is further underscored by comments by General Benny Murdani of Indonesia, who described his country's security ties with Malaysia as the closest and the best bilateral security relationship within ASEAN. On top of the above mentioned initiatives, the leadership of both countries had also convened an annual Bilateral Consultations between them to continuously discuss on further enhancement proposals.   Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was established to furnish both leaders with recommendations in furthering the enhancement of bilateral relations of the two countries, especially on the people to people relations^.

Economic Growth

The Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) is a subregional cooperation initiative formed in 1993 by the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand to accelerate economic transformation in less developed provinces. The private sector has played and will continue to play a key role in promoting economic cooperation in IMT-GT. Since it's formation, the IMT-GT has grown in geographic scope and activities to encompass more than 70 million people. It is now composed of 14 provinces in southern Thailand, 8 states of Peninsular Malaysia, and the 10 provinces of Sumatra in Indonesia. Economic opportunity which Indonesia can pave in the province such as developing new railway line in Sumatera. Allowing budget aircaft (Firefly) to expand its operation in various points. Taking advantage of Indonesia as the largest muslim population, a Halal Superhighway can be developed to enhance linkages in the Halal value chain. Border Township can be developed into a wholesale market thus stimulating trades for both countries.

Small Ambassador

Among the feasibility effort that both countries can take is enhancing the communication and interaction of the youth. There are quite a substantial number of Indonesian and Malaysian student studying in both countries. Social activities in the campus or in the community will certainly enhance the understanding of one social and culture practices. The earthquake in Sumatra gave the opportunity for some of the Malaysian to join hands in helping out the victims of the quake. The outreach to the masses will certainly act as an agent of change to identify global commonalities with people and culture of both countries.

INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFERENCES

Border Dispute

The border between Indonesia and Malaysia consist of both a land border separating the two countries’ territories on the island of Kalimantan or Borneo, as well as maritime boundaries along the length of the Straits of Malacca, in the South China Sea and in the Celebes Sea. The land boundary separates the Indonesian provinces of East Kalimantan and West Kalimantan with the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak. Whilst the maritime boundaries are located on four bodies of water, namely the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Singapore, South China Sea and Celebes Sea.

The territorial seas of both countries only meet in the Straits of Malacca and Straits of Singapore where both claim a twelve nautical mile (22 km) territorial sea. As of sea boundaries in Borneo, only continental shelf boundaries have been agreed to in the South China Sea while the continental shelf boundary in the Celebes Sea has not been determined at all.

            The main territorial disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia have occurred in the Celebes Sea, just off the east coast of Tawau, Sabah. Both countries previously claimed sovereignty over the Sipadan and Ligitan islands. The dispute was brought before the International Court of Justice in December 2002 where it was decided that Malaysia has the sovereignty on both islands. However, the incident in Amabalt has spark new security tension. The incident which occurred between the Indonesian naval force and the Malaysian navy at Batuan Unaran had caused uneasiness feeling by the Indonesian community. This was further aggravated by the sentiment pictured by the local media whose coined it as the Ambalat issue. A reference to the Ambalat oil and gas concession block within the disputed area.  The incident did not escalate into a confrontation due to the initiative taken by both countries leadership to calm down the situation. That initiative demonstrated the level of maturity in the bilateral relationship between both countries.

            On tha aspect of land border, cross border activity such as illegal logging was a nuisance for both countries. The issue of clamping down on the import of illegal logs from other countries requires committed inter-governmental cooperation. Malaysia had taken a number of unilateral as well as multilateral steps to curb this problem. Nevertheless, Malaysia and Indonesia had long worked proactively through institutionalised bilateral cooperation to stamp out illegal trade in timber. This cooperation is at a government-to-government level and there are joint operations between the two country’s customs authorities.

            It is a fact that Indonesians are crossing the border to work in Malaysia as laborers or maid as legal or illegal workers. Although the Indonesian government had placed a moratorium on Indonesian maid working in Malaysia due to ill treatment of the employer, effort was mounted to provide guidelines so that a memorandum of understanding is being reached between both countries. Matters which arose regarding the ill treatment of the Indonesian workers will be resolved according to the law.

Illegal trading

Malaysia and Indonesia trade is regulated by two bilateral agreements, that is the Border Crossing Agreement and the Border Trade Agreement, 1967. As in any country that shares a long border, there are bound to be some illegal trading taken place. However, these activities are not serious and in control. There wasn’t any report of serious enough to cause friction between the two countries.

Illegal immigrant

The other area of bilateral issue of concerns between the two countries is regarding the issue of the illegal economic migrant workers and the smuggling of contraband. It was estimated that there are about more than 2 million Indonesian “illegal workers” in Malaysia. Though this issue may create some misunderstanding from time to time, it was deemed resolved when the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyuno (SBY) held his bilateral talks with the then Prime Minister of Malaysia in 2005 by agreeing to set up 11 recruiting centers in Indonesia. The issue is not so much of the ‘illegal” status of the migrant workers but of the occasional mistreatment of the workers that “rock” the relationship. In fact, these migrant workers were tacitly welcomed by the Malays in the spirit of ‘bangsa serumpun’ and for political reasons.[1] The issues of maid abuse, so much and rugged crime by illegal Indonesian workers had created tension between locals and the Indonesian. In the same time Indonesia politician has taken advantegs on this issue by asking increasing of Indonesian workers salaray which theay are comparing with their worker salary in Dubai, Korean, Japan and Arab Saudi.

Fishing Area

Fishermen from both countries occasionally drift into each other maritime border to catch fish either intentionally or unintentionally. In Jan 2010, six fishermen in three longboat from Pantai Puteri were detained by the Indonesian authority suspected to be in the Indonesian water. This is said to be the second time that fishermen from the Pantai Puteri being nabbed by the authority. The detained quickly sparked the initiative by the Malacca statesmen to secure their release by contacting the relevent Indonesian officials. The release process was done through good standing relations with the Indonesian authority.

Environmenal Security

The El Nino effect that happen during the dry season in 1997 had caused visibility impaired in Malaysia[2]. Part of Malaysia which suffers from the haze had been shrouded in unpleasant yellowy smoke. Due to excessive open burning in Indonesia from agriculture activities, Malaysia once again experienced the worst haze condition. The haze condition had affected Malaysia in the tourism sector and transport. Flights were cancelled due to poor visibility. In order to resolve this environmental issue, Southeast Asian countries signed the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution in 2002, but Indonesia has yet to ratify the pact.

MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE RELATIONS

CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES ( CBM )

Background

Malaysia and Singapore shared a common colonial experience. Both are multi-racial societies, economically interdependent and politically they have adopted the multi party system and the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Physically, they are linked by a causeway, which was built in 1923 across the narrow Straits of Johor.

The Malaysia-Singapore unique relationships started since the historical period. A nation’s soul lies in her history, therefore, the historical influence, which to a large extend, have contributed towards this history of bilateral relations.  It began when Prince Parameswara who found Temasik and than later move to the place name of Ulu Bertam, late rname Melaka.   Since then, Perskutuan Tanah Melayu has get their independence from British colonial and in 1965 Singapore was divorcing from Malaysia. The two nations have come a long way from being the primitive colonial outposts to emerge today as the industrialised and prosperous nations of the Southeast Asia. Both countries are now more concerned with issues such as development, growth rates, employment, inflation, investment, trade, technology, human resource development, infrastructure and the environment.

Relations between Malaysia and Singapore have never being easy since the two nations parted in 1965. Donald E. Weatherbee (       )described the Malaysia-Singapore relationship as the most contentious in ASEAN[3]. Singapore is a predominantly Chinese[4] country as opposed to Malaysia’s Muslim Malay majority. One of the major reasons Singapore left Malaysia was Kuala Lumpur’s growing pro-Malay policies. Ever since the two countries went on their separate ways, they were left with a number of many unresolved issues. These issues or disputes were either the left over from the acrimonious separation between the two nations and also the mistrusts and suspicious that Singapore was developing at the disadvantage to Malaysia.[5] The historical issues that have pricked the relations between the two countries since the separation of the two countries in 1965 were[6]:

Security Cooperation

The joint border patrol between the two countries armed forces and regular joint exercises conducted such as the Ex Semangat bersatu for the Army,  Eyes In The Sky with the air force and  joint exercise with members of the FPDA. This confidence building measure would enhance the understanding and standard operating procedure for both forces, hence creating an awareness of action when the situation warrants without inflicting serious repercussion on the bilateral relationship.

INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFERENCES

Political Issue

Political issues have been a major cause of conflict between Malaysia and Singapore. An example is Malaysia’s protest in 1986 when Israeli President Chaim Herzog visited Singapore. Dr Mahathir said in Parliament that Malaysia would not interfere in another country’s affair about the visit.  Despite Dr Mahathir’s initial attempt at damage control by declaring that the Herzog visit was an internal affair of Singapore, public demonstrations broke out, and the ruling party could neither ignore the rising Muslim outcry nor allow the opposition parties to exploit the issue to gain popular support. Malay opposition parties including the UMNO Youth and DAP began a sustained campaign.

            Consequently, the governments of both Malaysia and Singapore took steps in diffusing the tension and limiting the damage. During Herzog’s visit, Singapore’s President urged Israel to withdraw to its pre-1976 borders and to recognise the Palestinians right to self-determination. After Herzog left, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew felt obliged to assuage Dr Mahathir publicly with the former’s explanation to Singapore university students. Lee Kuan Yew clarified that he could not have cancelled the visit as it was announced by the Singapore Foreign Ministry, but would have postponed the visit if he had known of it because of his personal relationship with Dr. Mahathir.

           

Another example of political tension is when four Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) personnel in two assault boats entered a small creek, Sungai Melayu, opposite Singapore – Malaysia territorial water.  Although the Singapore government claimed they were lost and mistaken, Malaysia felt that it was a spying action done deliberately. Subsequent to this incident, Singapore apologised for the mistake but pointed out that they could not have been spying as they were in uniform.

            The rapprochement between Malaysia and Singapore appeared to be over by January 1988 when Dr. Mahathir renewed an agreement to supply fresh water to Singapore, thus averting what would have been a most serious crisis in bilateral relations. 

           

Dispute On Pulau Batu Putih (Pedra Branca)

The inclusion of Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia’s Peta Baru issued in 1979, prompted Singapore to protest to the government of Malaysia. Pulau Batu Putih is a small rocky island located 8 miles off the eastern coast of Johor and 28 miles east off the eastern coast of Singapore. The lighthouse, which was built by the British in 1850, is presently administered by Singapore. The lighthouse serves as an important navigational point for regional shipping traffic, and has been manned by Singapore since then.

            Malaysia’s claim to the islands has been based on historical considerations, and the lack of any substantive evidence that could justify Singapore’s ownership over the islands. On the other hand, Singapore’s obvious refusal to cede the island back to Malaysia is probably based on past agreement, which Singapore contends that the British had concluded with the Sultan of Johor at that time. After a few rounds of unsuccessful talks, the dispute has been referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague for arbitration with the signing of the special agreement in Putrajaya on February 6, 2003. The hearing in The Hague is expected to take place on November 6, 2007.

            The dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Putih, is easily understood. Both countries pursued the ‘democratic peace theory’ approaches where each individual state did not resort to military force to resolve this matter but nevertheless, both Malaysia and Singapore act in a unitary way in pursuit of its own national interest. These pursuits of interests are in line with what Afred T. Mahan wrote on the importance of controlling the sea. He argued that the state that controls the ocean routes controls the world. To Mahan, sovereignty over land was not as critical as having access to and control over sea routes.

Eventhoigh the issues is consider solve by ICJ decision in favour of Sinagpore, the Malaysian side especially the ‘sulanate of Johor’ do not inclined with ICJ decision. Even the ICJ decision is so complicated which will form another new problematic issues. The wasiat by late sultan Johor is something must be not left behind. At the moment, the issues is manage but unsolved.

Land Reclamation Issue

Since separating from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore has added about 40 square miles of land an area about the same size as Paris.  Singapore now occupied 263 square miles as compared to 1965, in which only 223 square miles was occupied. According to Professor Tommy Koh[7]  when interviewed with CNN’s Atika Shubert on Land Reclamation on 23 October 2003, Singapore’s Concept Plan 2001, showed that its future reclamation can increase its existing land size by another 15 percent. The plan maps out Singapore’s vision for the next 40 to 50 years and is based on a population scenario of 5.5 million. The purpose of the reclamation is to provide housing, commercial, recreation, infrastructure needs, water catchments and military use. With only 223 square miles, the island’s main challenge is the scarcity of land. Its concept plan map showed that the reclaimed land on Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin will be connected with three bridges to the Republic.

            Singapore insists that the latest reclamation, which will provide 4900 hectares of land around Tuas and on Pulau Tekong, is within its waters and in accordance with international law.  The sea approaches to the growing port of Tanjung Pelepas and to Pasir Gudang port will not be affected. Singapore claims that, the lane to Tanjung Pelepas is too far away, while the approach to Pasir Gudang lies in the deep-water channel between Singapore itself and Pulau Tekong. Moreover, ships going to Singapore’s Sembawang Wharves also use this route. However, there is a limit to how much it could reclaim as Singapore’s shoreline was not far from the boundaries of its neighbours.

            Malaysia claims that the land reclamation project by Singapore will sabotage its plans to expand its ports, cause pollution, ecological damage and flooding. On the other side of the causeway, Singapore said that checks by various agencies had shown that those fears were unfounded. Malaysia has also expressed fears that the project will obstruct its plan to become a regional shipping hub. The area is too close to the country’s border and would certainly be a loss to Malaysia, adding that the narrowed sea lane would obstruct ships headed for ports in the southern most Johor state.[8]  If this happens, ships going to the Port Tanjung Pelepas (PTP) at Johore may be forced to use Singapore waters. In addition, Malaysian officials say that the project will make it more expensive to use Malaysia’s Pasir Gudang Port because it will narrow the approach route for ships, requiring port personnel to act as pilots. Shipping industry players such as Evergreen has shifted to PTP which followed a similar move by Danish global container line Maersk Sealand. This has placed Malaysia as a worthy challenger to Singapore’s position as one of the region’s main container ports. Although there is no encroachment upon Malaysian territorial waters, the fact remains that the maritime boundary between the nations might be altered. The charges are firmly denied by Singapore. In that project, Singapore is expanding Pulau Tekong Island, which is used for military training. Adding land to the military island has also irked some Malaysian officials who worry that Singapore is getting too close to the Malaysian naval base. The land reclamation issue was brought up to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 4 September 2003[9].

            On 8 October 2003, the ITLOS passed its judgment favouring Singapore’s position. There was no need for Singapore to stop its land reclamation works as requested by Malaysia either at Pulau Tekong or Tuas. The judgement by the ITLOS also upholds Singapore’s consistent position that their land reclamation works, which are carried out strictly within Singapore territorial water and in full compliance with international law. The Tribunal’s decision that both countries establish a group of independent experts to conduct a joint study to monitor reclamation works by Singapore.[10]

            The ITLOS subsequently indicated that the parties should jointly establish and fund a study on the impacts of the reclamations under the auspices of a Group of Experts (GOE), based on a one-year timetable. In the joint press statement on 8 November 2004, both governments agree to study the Final Report submitted by the GOE and the DHI in the same spirit of cooperation and consultation that has been shown throughout the course of the study and with a view to reaching agreement on further steps.[11] Recently this long standing bilateral issue has been resolved with the signing of a settlement agreement on April 26, 2005 in which Singapore, among other things, agreed to modify the final design of the shoreline at one of the reclamation areas while Malaysia agreed to bear the full cost of scour protection works at Pularek Jetty.[12]

            Looking at the scenario, Malaysia has lost the case and it will be difficult for Malaysia to continue the dispute over land reclamation by Singapore. The lasting effect from this decision is that Singapore’s boundary is much closer to Malaysia and the land reclamation narrows the approach route for ships.

            The future situation in this area and the possibility further land reclamation by Singapore or Malaysia is of great concern. In addition, Malaysia is mulling over the proposed extension of its port because of the precedence being set by the ITLOS. Furthermore, Singapore is also pondering its request to the ITLOS to prevent the extension of Malaysian ports as it affects the surrounding eco-system. These are the few areas that need consideration to prevent further crisis from escalating.

Water Issue

Water has become the latest political hotbed of contention between Malaysia and Singapore. So far, the highlight of the dispute appears to be on the price of raw water Singapore draws from Johor. Since 1961 Singapore has been paying only 3 sen per 1000 gallons of raw water, which is very cheap by any standard. However, this is not the only cost to Singapore because it has to pay for the leasing of land including water catchments and waterworks arrears, the development of water supply facilities including dams, treatment plants, pipelines and their operation and maintenance.[13]       

Payment for the raw water constitutes only one side of the equation. On the other side, Johor is buying treated water from Singapore. Since 1961, the price of treated water supplied to Johor has been fixed at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons. It is estimated that Singapore is currently supplying about 35 million gallons of treated water per day (mgd) to Johor, about double the stipulated quantity, which Singapore is obliged to sell to Johor.[14]

Therefore, the price of raw water is not the only bone of contention. Surprisingly, no party, not even Singapore, has touched on the quantity and price of treated water, which Johor is buying from Singapore under the Water Agreements. It is significant to note that though the 61 and 62 Agreements provide for the review of the rates for raw and treated water after the expiry of 25 years i.e. in 1986/1987; both countries apparently chose to defer to review year 2002, a delay of 15 years.

The 1990 Agreement is supplementary to the 1962 Agreement and is base on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two countries signed on 28^th June 1988. Amongst others, it reaffirms Singapore’s right to draw water from Johor River “subject to the terms, provisions, conditions and stipulation” of the 1962 Agreement.[15]

It is important to note that the MoU was drawn up during the period when the 61 and 62 Water Agreements were due for review. Surely the subject of water rates would have been brought up during the discussions between both parties, which lead to signing of the MoU in 1988. It could have been a deliberate move by both parties then not to discuss the price reviews for of Malaysia wanted to revise the price of raw water, Singapore too would surely want an increase in the price of treated water supplied to Johor. Moreover, Johor was then dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply and drawing much more that its entitlement as well. Preserving the status quo was a win-win situation for both.

By publishing “Water Talks. If only it could” in 2003, Singapore has obviously played its trump card and given up all hope of reaching in the present generation an amicable solution to the present impasse with Malaysia on the water issue. It looks like Singapore is prepared to sit   it out until the expiry of the three agreements, one in 2011 and the others in 2061 and has little hope of renewing any of them. In the mean time, it has gone ahead with its NEWater[16] and desalination schemes.

For Malaysia, if it still insists to revise the rate for the raw water, the only recourse is through arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Water Agreements. These provisions stipulate that where disputes cannot be resolved, they shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the law of Johor relating to arbitration. Alternatively, as the Water Agreements are enshrined in the Separation Agreement, which was registered in the United Nations, the International Court of Justice can resolve the dispute.[17]

Singapore is adamant in not going to the negotiating table to discuss the agreement with Malaysia and accepting new terms and conditions. The main irritants of the issue are Singapore being inflexible in renegotiating an agreement that is acceptable in today’s economic scenario. Water, being the lifeline of any economy is viewed as precious by all countries would lead to very strong disagreements if not handled prudently. At the moment, the Malaysian government has not pushed this issue into the limelight and has stated it would deal with this issue at the right time. As for Singapore, it would welcome any delay to the water talks.

Customs, Immigration And Quarantine Issue

The negotiation on this issue came to a stall when the both parties fail to agree on the water agreement in early 2003. The September 2001 comprehensive agreement helped to resolve this prickly issue, which provided sufficient liberty to be exploited for political purposes in times of economic or political difficulties. Both governments have reached an understanding on the Malaysian immigration checkpoint on the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore railway line, which is to be moved from Tanjong Pagar to Kranji. However, the issue of Keretapi Tanah Melayu (KTM) or Malayan Railway acquired land, covering over 217 hectares and stretching KTM land has not been resolved by Singapore’s agreement to offer Malaysia another twelve plots of land in Bukit Timah. Finally, Singapore also agreed to let Malaysia build an underground tunnel, at Malaysia’s cost to link a newly electric train service to the Kranji station in Singapore.

The railway station in Tanjong Pagar issue, underlined the peculiar relationship between the two countries and brings back to mind the days when they were a politically entity before separation in 1965. The entire issue should be placed in a broader historical context. KTM or Malayan Railway acquired land, covering over 217 hectares and stretching more than 20 kilometers into Singapore territory, under a 1918 colonial ordinance specifically for use for a period of 999 years.[18] That same ordinance limits the use of this land, of which the main railway station is situated on prime land in Singapore.

However, under a separate bilateral arrangement on November 27, 1990, know as the Points of Arrangement (POA), Malaysia and Singapore decided to depart from the 1918 Railway Ordinance to facilitate joint redevelopment of the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station and the land adjacent to the track owned by KTM. Later, Malaysia’s unwillingness to keep on with the 1990 agreement was based on the fear that it might eventually lost its proprietary control over some or all of KTM’s land in Singapore.[19] This issue has invariably become linked to the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) issue for reasons that remain uncertain. Singapore has argued that the two issues are separate: ownership of KTM land as opposed to exercising sovereign right by another state on Singapore’s sovereign territory. Singapore has maintained, using international conventions and legal practice which showed that any exercise of sovereign rights by Malaysia on Singapore’s territory, such as the stamping of passports, can only be done with the sufferance of the Government of Singapore. Both parties had agreed to move the CIQ facilities to Woodlands, on the northern most of the island, commencing 1 August 1998, but Malaysia detracted form the agreement in June 1997, and insisted that it would continue to operate at Tanjong Pagar after August 1.

Singapore Foreign Minister S. Jayakumar informed the Singapore Parliament on 31^st July 1998 that in a meeting on 17^th July between officials of both sides, the Malaysian delegation fully understood that the CIQ and POA were separate issues and therefore there was no question of Singapore taking back KTM land merely by relocating its CIQ to Woodlands.[20] In exchange, under the 1990 POA, three parcels of railway land at Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands would be jointly developed on a 60-40 basis with the Malaysian government holding the larger share. However, in 1993, Prime Minister Mahathir showed dissatisfaction with the POA, which does not include Bukit Timah land for joint development.

This issue irritates Singapore more than Malaysia, in which, Malaysia owned a parcel of land which cuts directly into the middle of Singapore. The law stated clearly on the Malaysian ownership and Singapore has to abide to it. This issue, if presented in an orderly fashion, can be leverage in negotiation for Malaysia. Nevertheless, in a “package” negotiation, most issues will be prioritized according to national interests and strategic advantage.

Air Space Issue

Another crucial deterioration in Malaysia-Singapore relations is the intrusion of the Singapore Flying College and the Singapore Flying School into Malaysia airspace in 1986. Johor’s government claimed that they were on spying mission and thus prompted quick denials by the Singapore’s Ministry of Defence. After two years of consideration period, the Malaysian airspace was then banned to all Singaporean aircraft. Consequently, on September 18, 1998, Malaysia formally revoked permission for the RSAF to use its airspace in southern Johor, a decision that was taken because of worsening relations between the two countries.[21] However, this development has led Singapore to increase its aircraft training in other countries such as India, China, Australia and others.

The withdrawal by Malaysia of clearance rights to the RSAF coincided with rising concerns over alleged increased airspace intrusions by Singapore whose military power has expanded significantly over the past decade. Until now, with the ongoing of bilateral military cooperation that involved all the RSAF aircraft, which include conducting all kinds of flying training over the Peninsular, Sabah and Sarawak are allowed.[22] However, for an aircraft that is going to take off from Tengah Air Base, there is a requirement to seek prior approval from Malaysian’s Foreign Ministry.

Singapore subsequently attributed the denial of airspace access for RSAF aircraft to complications in a search and rescue operation that led to the death of a British helicopter pilot during a joint exercise in the South China Sea, a charge promptly denied by Malaysia[23]. In this regard, Malaysia has even requested the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to revert to Malaysia control of airspace since 1965.

Air space is a crucial issue in projecting power and also in familiarizing the pilots of the surrounding terrains. Familiarizing the surrounding terrains around Singapore would be an added advantage if Singapore is facing an armed conflict with unfriendly forces. In addition, having the training in Singapore would cut down the cost of training and the number of trainees can be increased without incurring additional expenses if the training was done overseas. This issue of airspace was against raised during recent issue of constructing a new bridge to replace the Causeway....

[To continue reading, please follow the purchasing format.

Purchasing Format

1.         All prices are in Malaysia Ringgit, and do not include shipping and handling. Please choose your purchasing method.

Purchasing Method	Format	Costing
A	Softcopy (send to your email)	= RM 150.00
B	Hardcopy with soft cover (send to your address)	=RM 170.00 [RM 160.00 + RM 10.00 (shipping)]
C	Hardcopy with hardcover (send to your address)	= RM 200.00 [RM 170.00 + RM 30.00 (shipping)]

2.         Please pay to Account Number: 1402-0184306528 (CIMB – Mohd Radzi bin Abd Hamid).

3.         After completed the payment, please describe your order by written down the;

1. Title of the article:
2. Purchasing Method (A or B or C):
3. E-mail or address:
4. Date of payment:
5. Payment reference number:

and email to email: radzi_hamid@yahoo.com

Note:

a.         Copyright in each Articles, Dissertation and Theses is retained by the author. All right reserved.

b.                  Please note that because I custom print copies when receiving orders, articles, dissertation and theses can only be returned in the unlikely event of a production defect.

The order will sent to the address or email after received the payme