In responding to Malaysian Prime Minister’s recent statements that his country gets a ‘ridiculous’ price for its sale of water to Singapore, Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) said that Malaysia should “comply fully” with the provisions of the 1962 Water Agreement and the 1965 Separation Agreement.

The Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, said to Bloomberg at a recent interview that he intends to revisit the longstanding issue of water with Singapore leaders. He later made similar comments to Channel NewsAsia.

Mahathir Mohamad on working with Anwar Ibrahim again

What's it like working with Anwar Ibrahim again – and are they headed for another fallout? We put the questions to Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad in an exclusive interview.

Posted by Channel NewsAsia on Monday, 25 June 2018

“The 1962 Water Agreement is a fundamental agreement that was guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement which was registered with the UN,” an MFA spokesperson said in a statement.

See also  WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO LEE KUAN YEW’S VALUES?

Singapore’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, perhaps in responding to the statements by Dr Mahathir, published a video in his Facebook captioned: “Why water has always been sacrosanct in Singapore.”

Why water has always been sacrosanct in Singapore.

Posted by Vivian Balakrishnan on Monday, 25 June 2018

The video featured Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew recounting a remark by Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman to a British diplomat that he would “switch off the water supply” if Singapore did not do what he wanted underscored the importance for Singapore’s water self-sufficiency. This Mr Lee said, set Singapore on a course for water independence.

Singapore’s ex-Ambassador-at-large and former top official at MFA, Mr Bilahari Kausikan, had earlier suggested that Dr Mahathir was raising the water issue as diversionary tactic for cancelling High Speed Rail project.

Singapore Ambassador: Mahathir is raising water issue as diversionary tactic for cancelling HSR project