I refer to CK's letter, 'Selling diplomacy for domestic support'. Somehow, all his arguments seem very familiar. It is as if I have read it somewhere - in the Singaporean press to be precise.

I would urge CK to read our side of the story first, and use his common sense to evaluate the problem.

Why shouldn't Malaysia be angry over the negotiations? We are selling an essential item Singaporeans need everyday for almost nothing!

Let us try putting it the other way round: assume that Singapore is selling water to Malaysia at three Singapore cents per1000 gallons.

Wouldn't the Singapore public be angry that the Malaysian government is dragging its feet on the issue? Wouldn't they be even angry that their government is selling it at a price decided during your parents' time? They would call the agreements outrageous and lopsided, would they not?

Of course, there is the matter of pride. If Singapore just agreed to Malaysia's demand for a higher price, they would 'lose face' and would be perceived as submissive to its bigger neighbour's demands.

Yes, it is not a simple issue, but it would be much simpler if both sides were to put away their ego problems and solve the matter as it is.

Malaysia should stick to its asked pricing (and not change it as they like), and Singapore should say what they want, instead of only accusing our government of "shifting the goal post".

I have never really known what the Singaporean government's stand is, except to reject every single formula or price that we propose.