Screenshots

Dear Pak Lah & Co.,
Get over the Stone Age of gagging & let the rakyat know what's up. As citizens, we pay taxes & abide by the laws of the Country & here are a bunch of your cabinet spare parts that are trying to 'control' the dissemination of information.
Dr.M may be one to shoot straight from his mouth without second thoughts but none can forget his contributions to Malaysia. And most of the time, Dr.M turns out to be right!
Pak Lah has to stop playing the softie role & get into action - when he needs the help of opposition cartoons like Kit Siang & Anwar of ‘’dun bui,'’ or ‘’brokeback'’ fame, Pak Lah sure is going up the wrong way on a one way street of political doom!

Folks

I read the long open letter of Dr M.

Pretty long and winded.. with references to letters (5 appendices attached) from Singapore to him and to Daim.

Didn't get exactly what's the beef in Dr. M's argument, though it came across as Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong were not sincere, being fork-tongued and double crossing in dealing with him and Daim.

I thought in references to Singapore's letter, Dr. M interprete them only in parts, and not in whole context of the whole letter or issue ( even with bold letters to emphasise Dr. M's point. )

When I read the full letters from Singapore, they give a different angle to that what Dr.M is trying to imply. (I maybe wrong here!!)

There was a part also blaming the British colonial masters for cheating the Sultan of Johore or to that effect...

Can someone with good translation skills help out. It is easier to relate Dr. M's open translated in English with those the letters from Singapore (ie in the Appendix) which were written in English.

BRILIANT info,
well DONE!!

PM Abullah Ahmad Badawi should know the truth because he was the foreign minister at that time.

What Tun Mahathir did not tell you is the remaining of the letter which covered CPF, Johor Air Space, Tanjung Pagar Railway, Water Agreement and the whole lot.

Remember that both Mahathir and the Goh Chock Tong admistration agreed that all problems must be agreed and solved in a total package, whereby Singapore agreed to release the CPF, agreed to the construction of the bridge, access to Johor Airspace , Joint Development of Malaysian Railway lands in Singapore (Malaysia 60%, Singapore 40%-otherwise will be unable to be redeveloped without Singapore consent under the arailway agreement) in return for re-negotiation the water deal (3 cents up to 2011 and 2062) which Malaysia deems unfair. The new price will be 45 cents and 60 cents for raw river water instead of 3 cents for long term supply i.e. another extesion of water agreement.

Since Mahathir and Malaysia later changed position to negotiate all outstanding bilateral issues one by one instead of linking them all a total package whereby both Malaysia and Singapore will give up something to gain something in other aspects. The ideal is you will some, you lose some some kind of deal so that all issued will be solved in that spirit.

Thus, all agreement (previously in a total package) becomes invalid when Mahathir changed his mind to solve problems in a go as a total package. The letter shown by Mahathir was based on previous agreement in a "package deal".

Why should it be that only what the Singporeans say or how they interprete individual or the whole lot of deliberations as being the correct one? Why should it be that between the Singaporean version and Mahathir's version that the Singaporean version have greater credibility?

Did not both Goh Chock Tong as Prime Minister of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew provide strong indication that they were not averse to the causeway being replaced by a bridge? Is not their recent statements in the Singaporean parliament that any Malaysian unilateral action to remove the causeway would tantamount to an acto fo war? Having stated that would not that statement be in conflict with their then Prime Minister's acceeeding and indicating to the Malaysian wish to replace the causeway?

No doubt we all agree that Malaysian politicians are corrupt and most times they stink by soaking themselves in the cess pool of their own making? Were not the Singaporean leaders doing the same? Were they not stinking just the same?

When Mahathir accuses Lee Kuan Yew of waffling, is he wrong? Or is it typical of the Chinese where in front of your face they always like to say everything also can? (Hey, don't accuse me of being racis o.k. I am making this reference with a fondness of listening to all the Chinese sub-contractors wannabes I have met and dealt with in my life where they never own up to not being able to anything. Some have eventually ended up being major contractors and developers. You got to admire them really). But Lee and Goh are professionals and learned unlike the contractors. They can't be allowed to say can in your face and later go back and say cannot. I would suggest that in all the talks it would now seem like they were all kicking the ball no doubt, but anyone would be a liar if they suggested that there were goal posts to talk about in the first place let alone moving goal posts about.

Surely both Goh and Lee and Lee juniour have to respond to Mahathir's allegations and assertions of the eventsand the letters. Teh Singporeans did such an amaturish thing publishing those letters. But interpretations of those letters are not confined to them alone.

Fromt he begining I have been pro-bridge and I still stand by that. Now Mahathir's revelations reaffirm my position on teh bridge and be damned with Singapore, it is our decision to make and that is it. Pak Lah has indeed let us down. The rest of the cabinet has sold us out!

Pak Lah seems to have implied that the sand nad air space thing can be done based on press release. Did he back track cos of the legal issues and use the sand air space issue as a scapegoat.

the letter just adds to the confusion of the entire situation. and if the letter was not printed in the media, why was it not published by the government via their website?

or have they forgotten the entire transparency issue?

and another thing, is this bridge going to be budgeted as "mass transportation"? and if so, is that where all the petrol subsidy money going to?

/// Did not both Goh Chock Tong as Prime Minister of Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew provide strong indication that they were not averse to the causeway being replaced by a bridge? ///

Observer, as pointed out by "a malaysian hero" above, that was in the context of a package deal. Give and take. I give you the bridge and you give me water and airspace and whatever. Surely you don't expect to pick and choose? If Item 1 I have to give, I object. If item 2, I take, then I accept. Quid pro quo.

/// Is not their recent statements in the Singaporean parliament that any Malaysian unilateral action to remove the causeway would tantamount to an act of war? ///

Read the attached - I think it was TDM who started the war mongering. (First Page on 2 November 2002)

http://app.info.gov.sg/data/res_WaterTalksIfOnlyItCould_250104.html

Dr M gagged?
Dr M using alternative media?
Really... who needs the Opposition now?

Anyway, it does seem like AAB is digging his own political grave by taking on (or is it side-stepping) Dr M. Remember, all the Senior Ministers now were one-time Dr M's staunch supporters and I am sure they still are.

As much as I support the bridge, there is nothing else Tun M could do to revive the bridge... so sad!!

Why must Singapore bully us like that? If it was true, Singapore was given free to the British last time by the Sultan, then we should re-claim her back....for FREE! Hahaha! Singapore belongs to Malaysia! s***s...if only ...if only...it was possible. But Malaysia gave her away in 1965. Too bad!