I have read with interest the number of op-eds and letters posted over the past week regarding the Singapore-Malaysia water dispute . I note that with the exception of a few, most have approached the subject without attempting to grapple with the actual issues.

It is as if broad generalisations and clever turns of phrase are all that is needed to settle the problem. In short, prejudices substitute for clear and objective thinking.

I accept that there will always be those for whom our country can do no right, just as there are those for whom it can do no wrong. We will no doubt arrive at our own conclusions about the 'on-balance' record but one thing that both Singapore and Malaysia now agree on is that the water dispute cannot be settled by lofty rhetoric, but through sound disputation.

Engaging the nitty-gritty details is, of course, a wholly troublesome thing. It requires investing time and energy to understand and analyse the problem. One runs the risk of having to change one's perceptions and predispositions.

I know that before examining the issue closely, it was my gut instinct that any country wanting to 'deny' another much-needed water was wrong. I know now that the issue does not arise. It was a morally right conclusion but applied to a contextually wrong situation.

I will not insult anyone's intelligence by stating that the facts clearly favour one over another. By the same token, however, one should not jump to the conclusion that Malaysia's reaction is unwarranted, indefensible and totally without basis.

Singapore's decision to publish 'Water Talks' and in it, to make certain confidential letters public, placed the dispute squarely in the public domain. It would have been good if this had been done through proper channels but it cannot now complain too loudly that grievances are being openly aired.

Tit-for-tat? Maybe not. I have carefully read 'Water Talks' and in it Singapore has made statements and claims that demand a response. I would be seriously concerned if the Malaysian authorities do not say anything - if for nothing else, then just for the record.

I believe that a careful examination will show that Malaysia has a case for a much higher price for raw mater than 3 sen per 1,000 gallons on legal, ethical, economic and environmental grounds. Whether it is a persuasive case or not is for the individual to judge.

I cannot but be convinced that if more people knew about the core facts rather than the 'outer shell', they would more readily appreciate that the dispute is not as trivial as some make it out to be.