I thank Gerard Pereira for sharing the article diving the timeline of the dispute regarding the maritime boundary. It explains to me about the brown line (based on the 1979 claim by Malaysia) and why it jutted westward of the red line (agreed between the two countries in 1995).
I now understand the stand taken by the Singapore govt regarding the intrusion of the Malaysia vessels.
I observed that the red line stopped at a certain place before the brown line. I wondered why the 1995 agreement did not extend to include the brown line. If it had been agreed at that time, this dispute could have been avoided.
Was Malaysia acting unfairly in gazetting the boundary in 2018, without consulting Singapore? I withhold my comment.
Both sides have their good reasons for the stance that they have taken in this maritime dispute. It is better for the two govts to meet and resolve the dispute.
Each side has set out their separate pre-condition before the talks can start. I hope that this further "pre-condition" dispute can be resolved. It is not worth generating the bad relations over this side dispute.
When the talks begin, I hope that both sides focus on a win-win relationship, to replace the current lose-lose relations.
What is this win-win relationship?
Singapore likes to have the brown line recognized as the boundary, so that Tuas Port can have the room to develop. Singapore also likes to keep control of the air space, so that Seletar Airport can operate properly as planned.
What does Malaysia want? Let us ask them. Maybe, they want some financial benefit. Maybe the want better access to Pasir Gudang Port through the crooked bridge.
Should Singapore allow Pasir Gudang Port to be developed as a competitor to Tuas Port? I am clear that the answer should be "yes". It is not a good strategy to do well by hampering the effort of the other party. It is better to do well by being more efficient and productive. We can do it.
Maybe the win-win arrangement is to give each party what they really want. Nobody wants a bad and unhappy neighbor. Nobody wants to see both sides suffer.
I send best wishes to both govts in sorting out this issue.
I now understand the stand taken by the Singapore govt regarding the intrusion of the Malaysia vessels.
I observed that the red line stopped at a certain place before the brown line. I wondered why the 1995 agreement did not extend to include the brown line. If it had been agreed at that time, this dispute could have been avoided.
Was Malaysia acting unfairly in gazetting the boundary in 2018, without consulting Singapore? I withhold my comment.
Both sides have their good reasons for the stance that they have taken in this maritime dispute. It is better for the two govts to meet and resolve the dispute.
Each side has set out their separate pre-condition before the talks can start. I hope that this further "pre-condition" dispute can be resolved. It is not worth generating the bad relations over this side dispute.
When the talks begin, I hope that both sides focus on a win-win relationship, to replace the current lose-lose relations.
What is this win-win relationship?
Singapore likes to have the brown line recognized as the boundary, so that Tuas Port can have the room to develop. Singapore also likes to keep control of the air space, so that Seletar Airport can operate properly as planned.
What does Malaysia want? Let us ask them. Maybe, they want some financial benefit. Maybe the want better access to Pasir Gudang Port through the crooked bridge.
Should Singapore allow Pasir Gudang Port to be developed as a competitor to Tuas Port? I am clear that the answer should be "yes". It is not a good strategy to do well by hampering the effort of the other party. It is better to do well by being more efficient and productive. We can do it.
Maybe the win-win arrangement is to give each party what they really want. Nobody wants a bad and unhappy neighbor. Nobody wants to see both sides suffer.
I send best wishes to both govts in sorting out this issue.
Tan Kin Lian
No comments:
Post a Comment