Malaysia ‘will not admit defeat’ to Singapore on issue of water price review, says deputy foreign minister

KUALA LUMPUR — The Malaysian government wants to revisit the water price issue with Singapore, said deputy foreign minister Marzuki Yahya on Wednesday (Oct 31), adding that Putrajaya will attempt to start negotiations with the city state.

He told Parliament during question time that he expects Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to raise the issue during his upcoming visit to the Republic.

“The government is very committed and remains firm on its stance regarding the water issue and we will not admit defeat,” said Mr Marzuki.

“We will continue with our efforts to discuss and negotiate. For the information of this House, on November 12, 2018 the prime minister will be visiting Singapore (to attend Association of South-east Asian Nations meetings),” he added.

“Perhaps the water price will be one of the issues he (Dr Mahathir) will discuss with them.”

Mr Marzuki was responding to a question from opposition lawmaker Mohd Shahar Abdullah on the issue. 

Dr Mahathir has earlier said that the price of water Malaysia sells to Singapore under the 1962 Water Agreement is “manifestly ridiculous” and that he would like to raise it by at least 10 times.

The deputy foreign minister noted on Wednesday that Singapore has maintained that Putrajaya had lost its right to a price review when it did not do so in 1987, as spelt out in the 1962 Water Agreement.

However, Mr Marzuki insisted that based on the agreement, Malaysia retains the right to review the price and the government is now looking into the matter once again.

Under the 1962 Water Agreement, Singapore’s national water agency, PUB, may draw 250 million gallons of raw water from Sungei Johor daily at 3 sen per 1,000 gallons.

In return, Johor is entitled to receive a daily supply of up to five million gallons of treated water – or 2 per cent of the water supplied to Singapore – at 50 sen per 1,000 gallons.

Singapore has said the cost of treatment is RM2.40 (S$0.79) per 1,000 gallons, while Malaysia sells the treated water to Johor citizens at RM3.95 for the same amount.

In his National Day Rally in August, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had stressed that the 1962 Water Agreement between the two neighbours is “sacrosanct".

"We must proceed strictly in accordance with its terms," he said.

Mr Lee also pointed out that Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had also spelled out Singapore's position in Parliament in July to "avoid any misunderstanding".

Dr Balakrishnan had told Parliament that the 1962 agreement was guaranteed by both Singapore and Malaysia in the 1965 Separation Agreement, which was in turn registered with the United Nations.

"Any breach of the agreement would call into question the Separation Agreement, which is the basis for Singapore's very existence as an independent sovereign state," said the minister, adding that “neither Malaysia nor Singapore can unilaterally change the terms of this agreement between our two countries”.

Mr Mohd Shahar, the opposition lawmaker, had pointed out that the agreement will end in 2061, and claimed that Malaysia will lose around RM1.8 billion if the terms of 3 sen per 1,000 gallons remain the same.

He also demanded that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry take firm action against Singapore for accusing Malaysia of profiting from treated water sold to Johor by Singapore.

“The Singaporean Parliament has accused us of making profit from treated water supplied to the Johor government. I hope the Foreign Ministry will be firm so that the Singaporeans won't accuse us of making RM48 million because the cost to treat the water is RM2.40 while we pay 50 sen per 1,000 gallon,” said Mr Mohd Shahar. He did not elaborate on how he arrived at the RM48 million figure.

Meanwhile, Pakatan Harapan lawmaker Hassan Abdul Karim voiced his worry in Parliament that the two countries could go to war if Putrajaya cuts off the water supply.

The deputy foreign minister assured Mr Hassan that Malaysia has good ties with Singapore and would settle disputes via diplomacy instead of facing each other off militarily.

“If we cannot settle, we can take the issues to the Court of Arbitration... The perception (of possible conflict) is untrue. Perhaps, there are parties trying to stir things up.” AGENCIES