I took the trouble to take a look at the water agreement between Malaysia and Singapore on the Singapore government's website . This is the Tebrau and Scudai Rivers Water Agreement of 1961.

Under Clause 17, it does state that the right of review is after the expiration of 25 years. Similarly, the 1962 Johore River Water Agreement in Clause 14 provides for the review by the parties after the expiration of 25 years.

In response to Malaysia's assertion of its right to call for review, Singapore insisted that Malaysia had lost this right. Singapore has got to be blind to maintain that stand.

Both agreements state that "the facts that are to be taken into account upon such review shall include inter alia any rise in purchasing power of money and any rise or fall in the cost of labour, power and material for the purchase and supplying the water."

Therefore, in determining the basis for review, is the agreement confined to what is specifically given, or is it possible to look beyond increases in ppm, labour costs, power and material for the purchase and supply the water?

The Singapore government in its response to the Malaysian campaign maintained that the water dispute is not over money but Singapore's independence.

"The Water Agreements are parts of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreement can be varied unilaterally, then Singapore's independence would be in doubt. That is why Singapore has to resist Malaysia's attempt at price revision in a way which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Water Agreements."

It is not disputed that the agreement is to affirm Singapore's independence. Affirming that independence would simply mean Malaysia supplying the water unencumbered and without restraint. Fair enough.

This would be like the United Nation's Food for Oil programme with Iraq during the 1991-2003 years. Iraq got its food. But what exactly was done with it? We saw palatial palaces, and the profiteering by the government of Iraq even from its own citizens. After all, were not Uday and Qusay also 'government'? That did not go well with anybody, did it?

Similarly, we have Singapore rightfully receiving water at rates that might be justified for its survival, its independence and humanity. Yet Singapore profits not only from the sale of water to its citizens, but also from all the ships that call at its ports.

I do not think anyone will be able to see the rationale that profiteering from Malaysian water has anything to do with its independence as a nation. When I try to profiteer in that way, I have been called cheap!

In beginning the process of negotiation, we often find ourselves starting at some point or other, and then changing our own position to begin the process of meeting halfway.

Why that happens is because the process makes us better understand the issues and better understand past contexts, what was envisaged, present context and what is envisaged for the future. These are not static.

When it suits them, Singapore talks about the sanctity of contracts like as if this contract provides them a firm position of water rights. Fact is, in 1962 there was no alternative to water other than what nature provides.

Desalination or recycled water could not have been factors that could have constituted "facts to be considered in the review."

But the term 'inter alia' included in those paragraphs certainly opens the 'facts' up to other variables that might justifiably be brought to the table for the purpose of review.

The fact that Singapore misused the generosity of the water supplied "for the sustenance of an independent state" and profited from it - is also a factor that can justifiably be factored as falling within the facts considered for review!

Singapore's continued insistence of its position is to deny Malaysia the right to call for a review. Their denial of the facts in the water contract is no more than mere assertion of one-upmanship over Malaysia.

Since they have placed themselves in such a difficult position, they cannot now be seen as coming back down to the table and negotiate a proper settlement with Malaysia, and this would mean falling lower than the platform they have placed themselves on.

It would be a loss of face of the highest proportion. These are the issues faced by Malaysia. How to obtain what is rightfully deserves in a way that Singapore leaders do not lose face!