What's the price of water again?

So what’s up with the Malaysia government again?

Let’s rewind back a month ago. On 17 February 2019, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir stated that the price of water sold to Singapore will be up for negotiation. Fast forward to 28 February and Dr Mahathir urged Johoreans to speak up against the price of water sold to Singapore. Again on 3 March, he boldly claimed that if the situation was brought up to the World Court (International Court of Justice (ICJ)), Singapore would definitely lose. Just when we thought we had heard the end of the absurdity, the Johor Branch of Bersatu (Dr Mahathir’s party) released a statement, asking Singaporeans to “voice to their government how morally wrong it is to benefit from our goodwill through such a lopsided agreement”. With so many things happening in such a short span of time, let us answer this question today: how worried should Singaporeans be?

Here’s our answer: not really. Here’s why.

Debunking “Singapore will definitely lose”: International Law

UN Headquarters, New York. (Photo by Daryan Shamkhali)

Dr Mahathir had mentioned that should the situation be brought up to the ICJ, Singapore will definitely lose. According to him, “To go to the World Court, you must have agreement from both parties.” While it is true that the Malaysian government can simply reject the jurisdiction of the ICJ (a frowned-upon practice) should the Singapore government decide to file a case, it does not mean that Singapore will lose anything. Instead, the opposite may be the case. As parties to the UN & ICJ charters, both parties are required to abide by the terms of the agreement. Pacta sunt servanda (or “agreements must be kept”) is the basis of international law as it guarantees that any agreement or treaty is abided by their signatories. This ensures the legitimacy of international agreements and encourages cooperation over conflict. Hence, should the Malaysian Government choose to break the agreement unilaterally and bring the case to the court, even if they reject the ICJ’s jurisdiction, ICJ has the basis to find jurisdiction to proceed with the necessary processes.

This is of course assuming that the situation escalates to the international court - something that both governments would and should avoid.

We are doing more than we need to

Another reason why this conflict is unlikely to blow up is because under the current arrangement, Malaysia is actually benefiting.

According to the agreement, Singapore is required to sell treated water back to Malaysia at a price of 50 sen per 1000 gallons. As recognised by both the Singapore and Malaysian government, this is much cheaper than the cost required to treat water in Singapore. We are incurring losses as we sell treated water to Malaysia. This was also one of the reasons why Dr Mahathir chose not to review the price of water back in 1987 as he knew that if he chose to increase the prices of raw water, Singapore will increase the price of treated water which will diminish their benefits from this agreement.

As mentioned previously, in the Water Agreement of 1962, Singapore is required to provide Johor with treated water up to 2% of what we buy from them daily. However, we have been consistently providing them with more than required on Johor’s request. This is especially crucial when they experience dry spells which cause the water level at the Linggiu Dam to drop to critically low levels. Johor Crown Prince Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim even thanked the Republic for aiding his state during its drought last year.

Moreover, as stated by Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan in his speech at the Parliament, we had borne the total cost of construction of the Linggiu Dam in 1990 to ensure that PUB could draw the 250 millions gallons of water per day as it could not do so previously. Singapore continues to bear its operation cost even though Johor now owns the dam. Most importantly, Singapore paid Johor RM$320 million as compensation for the land used on top of a premium and rental fee paid to the government.

With this in mind, is it really immoral of Singapore to be paying 3 sen per 1000 gallon of water from Johor? With all these contributions from Singapore and the benefits reaped by Malaysia, it is evident that this agreement is not hurting Malaysia and tension should thus soon fade away.

Yet, we still need to remain vigilant

Despite knowing that the situation will probably not escalate into a cut in the water supply from Malaysia, it is still important that we remain vigilant. The current Malaysian government has a track record of contradictions in both domestic and foreign policies.

Within the first days of their ascension as the government, Dr Mahathir & Johor's Menteri Besar Datuk Osman contradicted each other when the former claimed that foreigners would not be allowed to purchase units in Forest City while the latter said otherwise. It was later confirmed that foreigners will be allowed to do so.

The issue of vaccination also became a source of confusion recently when Deputy Prime Minister Dr Wan Azizah said that the government was looking into the possibility of only allowing vaccinated children to enrol into schools while Education Minister Dr Maszlee Malik refuted her claims and made it clear that health and education were two separate matters.

These instances show that the government lacks coherence and is prone to sudden changes to its stance in crucial issues. With this level of uncertainty, it is imperative for everyone, the Singapore government and the people, to remain vigilant and not be complacent. While we boast that we have 4 national taps and that the agreement is meant to last and should be abided by, we need to be mentally prepared for any changes to the state of our nation and living. As stated by retired diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, “Political uncertainty in Malaysia inevitably leads to Singapore being used as a bogeyman to hold things together.” In essence, why we cannot be too comfortable with the prospect that this situation should not last is that this is not just about the price of the water, this is about creating a villain, a scapegoat in times of internal instability and I am afraid that in this narrative, Singapore has been placed in this position by our abang up North.

(Photo of Malaysia skyline by Sadie Teper. Photo of Singapore skyline by Max Felner)

By Eugene Goh

Vetted by Jordan Ang