Here we go again. Like water from the tap, the on-again, off-again spat between Malaysia and Singapore is on again, with the water issue dripping onto center stage yet again.

I don't wish to add to the merits or demerits of either side's arguments as I have long come to the conclusion that the spats - whether it's over water, the location of Singapore's customs, immigration and quarantine facilities, etc - are a waste of my time and energy to get worked up over.

Why? First, both are cynically milking or manipulating whatever the issues for domestic political motivations.

There is also the historical baggage. The Malaysian government and even many other Malaysians just cannot seem to accept that Singapore is a sovereign nation-state. Instead, it still wants to harp on the historical ties and play the role of the "older brother". And so, whatever that is Singapore today, including its economic achievements, owes much to the benign attitude of older brother Malaysia.

Certainly, Singapore cannot be so impertinent as to go off on their own and do things their way without showing some kind of deference to or accommodation for older brother. But Singapore just cannot have that because then all that they have laboured hard to accomplish all these years since separating from Malaysia in 1965 will count for zilch.

It also constantly wants to be more competitive than Malaysia because, well, they do not have anything in the form of resources other than the hard work of their population to rely on.

Instead, I want to focus on the Malaysian strategy of adopting the ad campaign to present its "facts and figures". I must say it has dumbfounded me.

What are ads? By their very definition, they are meant to be taken with a great deal of scepticism, even disbelief. Is this not the kind of attitude we take in order to survive in a world hyper saturated with all kinds of ads or commercials? Or have we given in to them so that adults, parents, educationists are no longer teaching the young ones with impressionable minds to take ads or commercials for what they are - not entirely forthright or truthful?

And so, what is the Malaysian government thinking placing the "facts and figures" of the water issue in the very form of communication that invites or should invite scepticism or disbelief?

As much as I may find the ads persuasive at times, I still cannot help but feel that because they are ads I have not been given the whole picture, only what the Malaysian government (like any advertiser) wanted to present and being directly or indirectly manipulative in the process.

I am not singling out the ads or Malaysian government for skeptical treatment because this is how I have come to approach all ads or advertisers. Further, after going over any ads, I often want to see the fine print as well. Or has this practice gone out of fashion as well?

In addition, the Malaysian ad strategy has got to cost a good deal of taxpayer's money. The ads have been placed not just in Malaysian papers but also the Asian Wall Street Journal . But how much is anyone's guess. Singapore's Straits Times has come up with the amount but let me refrain from mentioning it, lest I'll be criticised for so readily taking up Singapore's "facts".

I would rather get it from our Malaysian government but have wondered why we Malaysians footing the bill are not told the amount. I further think that the amount cannot be dismissed as merely kacang putih .

Here then is the rub: because the ads cannot be cheap and they invite scepticism or disbelief, how effective can the ad-campaign strategy be?

On the other hand, Singapore's publication of a book to present their "facts and figures" seems more sensible (note: I am not saying here that I endorse or do not endorse the publication).

The book could be printed by government printers and so could not have been very costly. Further, copies are also made available in bookstores to be sold to the public. It is debatable many copies of it have been sold (but, then, who knows given that the Malaysian ads appeared to have kicked up further interests in the water issue again), the Singapore government could at least recover some of the costs.

True, just because the "facts and figures" are published in a book does not mean readers will take them in lock, stock and barrel. But is it not also true that people tend to take what is in a book with lesser scepticism or disbelief than an ad?

Just on communicative strategy, I fail to see how the Malaysian government would accomplish the aim of educating the public on "the facts". Meanwhile, there surely are better ways to spend top ringgit spent on the ads.