Water dispute: Best policy is quiet diplomacy.
-
First broadcast: 25 July 03,
Radio Singapore International
Producer: Bharati Jagdish
Singapore took out a full-page advertorial in the Asian Wall Street Journal today to counter a media blitz by Malaysia on the protracted dispute over the price of water
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malaysia had launched an eight-day media campaign in the Malaysian press and the Asian Wall Street Journal, accusing Singapore of making huge profits from the sale of Malaysian water to Singapore.
Malaysia has also released a 20-page booklet on the water issue which it says is intended to "set the record" straight.
This came three months after a booklet "Water Talks? If only it could" was released by Singapore stating its position on the dispute.
Singapore's advertorial in the Asian Wall Street Journal today states that the Singapore government is still ready to resolve the water dispute with Malaysia in accordance with the terms of the 1961 and 1962 water agreements.
Central to the discussion, is not how much Singapore pays for the water but how any price revision is decided upon.
In the advertorial, Singapore also pointed out that Malaysia had first agreed and then changed its mind on the price of water.
In October last year, Malaysia unilaterally broke off the talks.
That left arbitration as the only recourse as provided for in the two water accords.
However, political observers have questioned the wisdom of both countries in running advertisements to make their points.
They say that quiet diplomacy would have been a much better option.
Professor P. Ramasamy (PR) is from the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
PR: "One cannot take a legal or moral perspective on these things. One should take a more diplomatic perspective on this. Singapore might be right and Malaysia might be right, it's all relative. I think what can be done is basically, just put things aside, and I don't agree that Singapore should have come out with those letters, even though Singapore might have thought they were right, given all the controversies. I also don't think it was right for Malaysia to come out with the subsequent publication. I think the best, amicable settlement is through quiet diplomacy. By politicising the issue, by putting it in the press, I think they have really created problems for themselves. I think both are childish."
Mr Arun Mahizhnan (AM) is Deputy Director at the Institute of Policy Studies in Singapore. He says that the advertorials did not do anything to elucidate the matter for the public either.
AM: "In terms of public communication, there is a need to tell the larger public what the issues are, but I'm not at all sure that an advertising campaign is the right way to go about it. This sort of campaign will generate a lot of heat, but very little illumination. Then, when there is a tit-for-tat kind of response from both sides, nobody wins in the end and those who believe that one side is right, will not really be persuaded by this kind of campaign because the campaigns, by necessity, will have to be very brief and you can't really discuss the complexities of the issues in a newspaper ad campaign.
"In a way, I suppose, Malaysia had been prompted to do this sort of thing by certain publications on Singapore's side, but whether the newspaper ad campaign is the right response, I'm not at all sure. Neither am I sure that Singapore needed to respond through the advertising campaign. I suppose I can understand the compulsion that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs felt about this, but at the end of it all, we really need to go back to the negotiating table. That's where the real dialogue will take place, not through the mass media."
But can negotiations really be revived successfully at this stage. Arun Mahizhnan.
AM: "Neither Singapore nor Malaysia have failed to negotiate any other way. They have been trying very hard. This just happens to be a wrinkle, as far as I'm concerned. They had in the past, and I believe they will continue in the future, to negotiate in the normal diplomatic way as they have done very often. Once in while, things do flare up. That's understandable because there is a lot at stake and this has been simmering for a long time. So while this is rather upsetting to both sides, I don't think it will continue as the modus operandi."
Professor P. Ramasamy (PR) from the Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia stressed the importance of not jeopardising the current relationship with continuing advertisements.
PR: "These two countries have a historical relationship. Malaysians have relatives in Singapore and vice-versa. Singapore is very crucial in terms of the development of Johor. There are so many common interests. I don't understand why these leaders would make very egoistical statements which actually spoil the whole thing. The best policy is to stop publishing and do some quiet diplomacy." -
Quiet diplomacy ? Try these:
October 14, 2002:
Malaysian FM Syed Hamid Albar said that if water talks ended in stalemate, Malaysia would refer the matter to the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Six weeks later...:
“I didn’t say we were going to court, did I? I haven’t said anything.”
December 31, 2002:
Malaysian FM said:
“Singapore has two choices. If it refuses to compromise, go to war.”
Early 2003
Malaysian PM Dr. Mathathir said
The Water Agreement is only an “ancient piece of paper”.
July 2003
Page 20 of NEAC publishing "WATER: The Singapore-Malaysia Dispute THE FACTS" :
"we (Malaysia) have always abided by our legal commitments and we will continue to abide by our future commitments. The people of Singapore can count on MalaysiaÂ’s continued supply of raw water to Singapore..." -
Sshhhh...... quiet... quiet
-
Something like what US president Theodore Roosevelt's approach to foreign policy:Originally posted by Ding:Sshhhh...... quiet... quiet
'Speak softly and carry a Big Stick'.
E.g Quote from Seah Chiang Nee, www.littlespeck.com
When Indonesia's former president Wahid threatened Singapore with proposal for Indonesia and Malaysia to cut water supply in 2000, Singapore replied cooly to the Indonesian president's outburst.
"We are a practical, rational people. We do not have to react to every emotional statement from Indonesian leaders," said Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. "I think we (should) just be consistent in our position, and just ride whatever rhetoric that may come forth, ride the waves."
There was no expression of anger. But the mild response has a more effective ring than any hard counter-punch. It is one of those times when speaking softly itself is a big stick.
....the two countries signed the water agreement in 1991 to build undersea pipelines from Riau Province (through Bintan and Batam) to Singapore. When the US $1.7 billion project is completed in 2005 Indonesia will supply 4.5 billion litres of water a day ?
This is years ahead before the expiry of first of two Water Agreement with Johor when it ends in 2011. -
Correct. Silence is golden.Originally posted by Ding:Sshhhh...... quiet... quiet 
-
Sshh.....ssshhhhh.......sssshhhhh....
-
in a sense agree... had thought mfa would keep quiet after the msia blitz. quite disappointed when they launched another round.
but quite funny... msia unhappy why we responded. its like, if they can respond to our first round after such a long delay, and still call it a response, why cant we respond to their response? if they so argue, that means if their delay is instead, a few years, we are also not entitled to respond? -
Do not believe his lies... -
I can only say Singapore's interpretation of the water dispute is analytically correct with the facts but Malaysia's interpretation of the water dispute is somewhat emotionally nationalised to win votes, twisting with the facts.