Screenshots

Jeff

Thanks for the english translation summary.

I was right it was long winded.

The old man must have plenty of time on his hands.

Dr.M when he was PM used to be short and blunt in his remarks, while leaving the long details to his hanger-ons to follow through.

Now, even his hangers-on, who literally hang on Dr.M's bush jacket like a leech, have all disappeared and hiding themselves from the old man.

Political friends have short memories and questionable loyalty. You are only as good as what you are, not who you are.

Pak Lah will have the same fate from his UMNO cronies in years to come.

/// Mahathir also cited another letter from Goh dated April 11, 2002, where he said: “I have decided to personally handle our discussion about the two-way package”.

Mahathir then mocked, “Only now, someone in power is talking (for Singapore)”. ///

Classic and typical Mahathir - selective amnesia. He was the one who said Ten Daim was not empowered to sign the Points of Agreement, AFTER it was agreed and signed. At least in this bridge issue, nothing has been signed yet. Talking through both sides of the mouth.

it would be great if TV3 or RTM dare to hold a roundatable debate involving The TUN, AAB, Syed Hamid as well as Matthias Chang.

but it won't happened , as it is unimaginable for AAB to be screwed infront th eyes of the Rakyat.

"This is the people's money." Coming from Mahathir, this sounds very hollow. When he was in charge, he didn't give a damn that it was the rakyat's money. He just spent it all on his mega projects.

It is hightime that a person responsible should stand up and explain the rationale of stopping the bridge construction halfway.

With the spiralling fuel cost, we do not need another project to be bailed out by the taxpayers' money. Enough is enough. If Gerbang Perdana has comes up with claims of RM 100 + millions, somebody up there should have expected the implication in halting the project. And what's more when almost the same cabinet lineup who approve the project now agree to discontinue the project. My question is simple...who the cabinet members follow? The present leader or the interest of the public?

Till then...G'nite M'sia...wherever u are...

drmuzi

AAB will send his Son-in-law.
He knows very well he is incapable of that. I believe if such event going to happen, he will be sitting there speechless and only smile and nod his head.

"This is the people's money." Coming from Mahathir, this sounds very hollow. When he was in charge, he didn't give a damn that it was the rakyat's money. He just spent it all on his mega projects.

Well, atleast i think he is thinking about it now. Does a ex-criminal have a right to say that stealing, raping, robbering, etc, etc are wrong????

Joejak:

Of course any ex criminal can repent and say that what he did was wrong. This doesn't seem to be the case with Mahathir. In an interview several weeks ago, he sarcastically remarked that he was known for spending money for mega projects.

I am no supporter of TDM. However, somehow i am on his side on this issue or rather i am totally pissed with the way current gov managing the country. Just see how much more money have been allocated for that CIQ and roads leading to it. And believe me, they can't live with that old causeway for too long, it is just a matter of time they will replace it and who knows next time around the cost will be doubled.

TDM may be right for all I care, but he is no longer PM..so he cannot decide on the bridge except rant and rave. He should be the last person to complain about the muzzled press. What have he done for press freedom for the period he was PM. Now he must realize that he is a victim of his own rules. Serves him right that the media treat his opinion with contempt. He is no longer PM and is just and ordinary citizen and I am amazed the papers are still giving him coverage.

Personally I think the Tun should just shut up. He had his chance for 22 years...so shut please TUN

GP only claiming RM99.7 million. They gv RM0.3mil discount. So we win abit also as rakyat.

groo

I am curious what cost Gerbang paid.. and how much profit they made building the virtual bridge.

Average profit margin should be around 25%

About 25 million ringgit of rakyat's money, into the pockets.

joejak

the son in law is very quiet in public.

Must have advised the father in law that resulted inthe fiasco on the virtual bridge and let the father in law take the crap from the advice while continuing to make his pile as a shareholder and director of companies.

A lot of money is being spent here people. We need to look into the bridge matter seriously and not make hasty decisions.

Compensation: RM 100 million

Part CIQ demolition work & new straight road lead to CIQ from existing Causeway: RM 250 million

Cost of CIQ: RM1.6 billion

TOTAL: 1.95 Billion for a building...

Btw why is a very straight road cost (RM250 million) one third of the scenic bridge (RM620 million)???

CIQ cost RM1.2 BILLION,
but according to an local chinese contractor, who walk to and inspect it,
said all contractors can build it at "50% of the quote!

"Let Malaysians, especially the Malays and namely those in Johor, remember that the English had lied to the sultan (of Johor-Riau) into surrendering Singapore to them for free. "

- it's still a MISTERY to us that how could the island be separeted, when the JOHN Bull balik kampong" time. (but Tunku did expel the island, but that was another story later.)

art chan

By asking an old man to shut up is not very democratic in my humble opinion. Do you agree with me? Every citizen has the right speak out, be it wrong or right.

Yes, I do hope that he realized he is the victim of his own and help to make that change. Seeing something is wrong and close our eyes does not do any justice to ourselves and that the attitude brought us to where we are now.

"This is the people's money." Did i read the TUN right ? Humbly and Respectfully ' The only thing common among these guys is that they dont give a rat's arse about the rakyats money.Like the politician who lost rm300K just in jewels , u think he gives a damn about how you live and the hell we go through daily even with " Changing Our CARA HIDUP'. Just a bunch of bloody Morons who are elected by US and life OF us.

Ten years ago in Kuala Lumpur, when you had to fly to a domestic destination, you traveled 30 minutes to Subang Airport, where you left from the 1954-style terminal where you had to go out on the tarmac in the rain and climb up a staircase to get on the plane.

Then, the government built a multi-billion ringgit global hub terminal 75 minutes away from KL with world-class everything. Then, they built a high-speed rail connection so it takes only 30 minutes to get there.
Despite this, the global hub terminal remains a deserted ghost-town with far more gate capacity than flights.

AirAsia then starts up. Everyone can fly and the global hub terminal begins to come to life. So the government decides to build AirAsia far, far away terminal at the other end of the airport, one that replicates the old 1954-style terminal. It doesn't connect to the high-speed train.

Then, almost all domestic flights are shifted over to AirAsia.

So now you have to take a 75 minute bus ride to the far, far away terminal and walk out in the rain and climb the stairs just like back in 1954, while the global hub terminal is once again deserted.

Oh, and if you need to transfer from an overseas flight to a domestic flight, you have to take a half-an-hour bus ride from the global hub terminal to the far, far away terminal.

Is this back to the future or back to the past? Or is it just 'terminal stupidity'? God Bless Us .

p.s: Thanks for the summary Jeff, after Dan Brown's Code , couldnt find anything more cryptical to read.

Mahathir has point in asserting that Malaysia should not give in to Singapore on our right to build the bridge within our own territory. Being a sovereign country, Malaysia has every right to build anything it wants in it’s territory.

Pak Lah claimed that the rationale for not building the bridge was that people of Malaysia would not be happy to trade the airspace and sale of sands to Singapore. I guess it does not take a genius to figure out that there is a bunch of crap excuse.

I have never agreed for the bridge to be built in the first place. Like most people, our feelings are mixed when we learnt that the bridge was scrapped. We were disgusted by the lame excuse given and the waste of funds. On the other hand, the bridge serves no purpose and indeed ridiculous to be seen dangling mid-air only to be reconnected to an old causeway.

However, if anyone were to read the Star's paper, I believe the main reason got to do with the KTM land in Singapore. As reported, Singapore has every right to repossess the KTM land should it remain idle for more than 6 months. To build the scenic bridge, train services to Singapore would be interrupted for more than 1 year.

Both parties, TDM and Pak lah are to blamed. However, the biggest culprit is TDM for rushing to approve the CIQ construction and the scenic bridge in the first place just months before stepping down. I guess TDM is aware of Pak Lah's cost trimming measure. He stood up against Mahathir by scrapping the double rail project. I guess he ran out of options/excuses to justify it but to scrap the bridge as well.

In short, Pak Lah is not to be solely blamed. He should just tell the people of the oversight experienced by them and sack the adviser for advising wrongly. Malaysia may have lost more than RM100m in scrapping. But, if the scenic bridge is to be built, the cost of RM1.6b would be too hefty cost to bear and the purpose it serves just fail to justify it.

Not giving in to Singaporean demands and building the crooked bridge are two separate entities.

I also get pissed off by Singaporean demands but I don't want the crooked bridge.

Why should we cut our nose to spite our face ?

nightcaller,

i don't think even Pak LAH son in law dare to face Tun for a public debate on air.

he know very well that he will be bruised.

if you still remember when tv3 came forward with a debate between Khairy and Chua Jui Meng.

It seems that even Chua is far better than him in oratory skills.

I still think a debate in TV3 or RTM between TUN, AAB , Syed Hamid and Mathis Chang will be the best avenue for those to put their opinions and views for the public to judge.

My own opinion:

1. OK to build full brigde

2. NOT OK to build half bridge.

Since Singapore did not cooperate by agreeing to build a full bridge, I feel we should not waste money to build a half bridge. What's the purpose of a half bridge for?

So to me the decision to scrap building a half bridge was correct.

JEFF OOI says: You omitted one important point. It was also Abdullah Badawi who revived the half-brisge project as recently as January 18, 2006. Renamed as 'Scenic Bridge', he ordered a full-steam pace to complete the project, only to cancel it 12 weeks later. Costs kicked in which now has to be compensated to Gerbang Perdana. You should ask why this revival-cancellation debacle that cost big money -- yours and mine.
TDM's open letter is baffling. Was he running a one man show in the past that no one else knows his dealings with Singapore? AAB was his DPM for so long and surely he (and other cabinet members) must know as much as TDM isn't it? We are talking about running a country here, not one's own company. Correct me if I made a wrong assumption.

With the above assumption, I am quite sure AAB must have its reasons not to continue with the half bridge with all the back ground knowledge from the last administration and with additional information after TDM left office, am I right?

But the excuses used not to continue the project, (agreeing to the wishes of the people and sand issue) was indeed lame.

Another question. How did we lose our sovereignty by scrapping a money wasting, half and useless bridge project? Did we give our sand in the process? Did we give our air space in the process? Did Singapore reclaim it's sea to the Border?

Sorry, but I am getting very confused.

In addition to the question of the decision-reversing, one asks this:

Why spend RM1.6 Billion, and that's RM 1,600,000,000, to build a complex whose sole functions are to clear visitors and check cargo in an era when (a) most of the visitors through that proposed checkpoint will remain mostly our neighbours as relatives and tourists, since foreigners coming in from that island would have already been ably checked by them,and unndesirable elements eliminated, and (b) we're moving towards a more benign afta-driven open market, and (c) if people want to buy taxable non-singapore goods, they would buy direct and that will come in through Port Klang.

Pray tell, why spend so much to construct a building whose purpose will reduce in relevance with time.

Actually, where did a big chunk of the money LEAK to?

The revival-cancellation of the scenic bridge is the most questioned issue of all.

AAB's team is responsible to explain this rather than blaming it on the people's wishes and something else. At the moment, it has made our government the biggest laughing stock. It reflected on them, it reflected on the administration of Malaysia, it reflected on the competence of the people Malaysians in general elected to govern the country.

I felt that AAB has done a lot of damage to his credibility as a sound decision maker on this issue.

It might have been better for his standing/credibility if the half bridge were to gone ahead. Eventhough it will not be a good (probably worse) decision as far as the practicality of the half bridge and the rakyat's money is concerned. At least, it will show to everyone he is firm and no one can tell you what you want to build in your own backyard. Perhaps there may be more hoo hahs after that than the current revive-cancel saga.

But then again, would you prefer to have the project 'completed' and more money (I forgot how many billions) thrown into a half, crooked bridge than losing the RM100m? To me a half bridge is madness from the start. It should not be revived. It should not even be conceived in the first place.

Thank you Mahathir for the explaination, I think I've learnt something.

I think most people who travel to Singapore frequently wants the bridge, but not all Malaysians, especially when we are talking about billions of ringgit, which is also means "wang rakyat"

Boleh!, you said...

"So to me the decision to scrap building a half bridge was correct"

Actually, in Mahathir's context and as long as the contract (I assume there is such a contract before the work was started) is concern, there's no half bridge. It is a full bridge because LKY said this in his letter to TDM...

LKY said...
"As I have said to you, Singapore will be reclaiming our side nearly to the boundary, and WILL BUILD our side of the bridge to meet up with the Malaysian side at the boundary."

In my opinion, if the contract is effective, Singapore has to build their side of the bridge, they have no choice. As with the reclaimation of land in to the sea until the boundary, the sand has to come from somewhere. If the contract did not specify we have to supply the sand, by hook or by crook they have to build the bridge to meet up with us at the boundary.

I think Mahathir is right about the legal stand.

However, whether it is worth to spend so much money for a bridge is another issue.

For me, I do not want the bridge.

But I was a little disappointed with Pak Lah's decision to revive it in the first place.

streetz,
You need to read the story is totality instead of being selective aka Tun Mahathir and Mathias Chung.

The agreement by Goh and Lee was for trade off in a total package to resolve all outstandng bilateral issues. For example, SIngapore agreed to release CPF and construct the bridge in return for re-negotiation of the price for raw water, development of Tanjung Pagar railway land etc.

With the termination of the packege deal, previous agreement was off the table.

As Tan Sri FAuzi wrote :
"14 October 2002: Goh writes to Dr Mahathir, saying he has decided to withdraw the concession he had said Singapore was prepared to make as part of trade-offs involving the bridge and related issues.

In a diplomatic note, Singapore explains that the agreement given by Goh was “made in the context of the then ongoing negotiations between the two Governments as an overall package of bilateral issues. With the termination of the package negotiations, the underlying basis for the statements in the letter of 11 April 2002 no longer exists.”

JEFF OOI says: Hence the question: When the crooked bridge was as good as dead in 2003, why must Pak Lah revive it two years later in January 2006, and cancelled it again 12 weeks later, in April 2006, and the process made the fat Gerbang Perdana fatter?

serpico

I like your analogy about the KLIA and the airport facilities.

Brilliantly done and researched.

Please do one for the virtual bridge, and I would have enjoyed as much. I used to say that crooked bridge as non existent bridge until I realised there were two phallic remnants sticking out of the sea erected by Gerbang Perdana. Meanwhile I was looking for 4 big rocks nearbythe two poles sticking out ie ,two big round rocks for each of the pole sticking out of the sea.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/storyprintfriendly/0,4582,193248,00.html?

Business Times - 25 Apr 2006

Abdullah says he won't spend and burden future generations

PM says he'd rather do the right thing than be popular

(KUALA LUMPUR) Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said his government's economic policy is not only about 'tax and spend' while leaving behind a debt burden to the future generations.

'I am not averse to spending. The Ninth Malaysia Plan proves that. But if my economic policy is only about tax and spend without any thought to structural changes, what will I leave behind for future generations?

'I don't want to leave behind a debt burden or contingent liabilities. I don't want us to succeed today so that the future can pick up the tab,' he said at the Kuala Lumpur Business Club Dinner last night.

The Prime Minister pointed out that while politicians wanted to be popular, popularity must not come ahead of doing the right thing.

As such, Mr Abdullah said, the economic plan that he had set out was what he believed was right not just for this generation but also for those who would follow.

'Never mind that I may not build great monuments or glittering cities. What is important to me is that what we do today, what we change today, will enable us to succeed now and far into the future,' he added.

Touching on government and private-sector partnership, Mr Abdullah made it clear that the government was promoting a new approach that provided a fair agreement for both parties different from the concessions of the past.

'I will not allow the government and ultimately the taxpayers to suffer from lopsided agreements which give disproportionately lucrative returns to private sector promoters.

'The government will also not easily guarantee or subsidise future concessions where in the past profits were privatised and losses were nationalised,' he said. 'I do not like bailouts. The rest, you will have to work it out.'

He pointed out that under the new partnership known as Private Finance Initiatives (PFI), the government will save from having to allocate funds upfront for certain development projects.

The Prime Minister said the government believed the PFI concept will entice the private sector to participate in infrastructure development and also introduce greater flexibility in the way the private sector participated, including via build-lease-transfer, build-operate-transfer or build-own-operate.

'In fact, I would like to go on record to say that in the relevant sectors, I will give preference to proposals that are structured as PFI,' he said.

On the Ninth Malaysia Plan, he said it was crucial in determining whether Malaysia would succeed in becoming a developed nation by 2020.

To succeed in the present competitive environment, he said, the Ninth Plan emphasised that Malaysia must move up the value chain in all economic activities, thus the need to also focus on human capital development.

He added that if Malaysia's growth in the past was largely driven by foreign direct investment, tomorrow's growth must be propelled by Malaysia's own creativity and capabilities.

This, he said, required creating an environment in which creativity was encouraged and innovation was rewarded.

'I am prepared to lend my political capital and assert my political will to see changes in our education system that will enable us to foster this environment early on for our youth,' he said. - Bernama

No absolute truth in Tun’s open letter

What we are witnessing now is TDM trying very hard to establish the truth in the run up to the many negotiations with Singapore. He is stating his facts, and you believe facts to be true? Therefore, it becomes an absolute, and that moves it into an expression of a truth, his truth

What is the conflict in identifying truths as absolutes? In that rigidness of the absoluteness there is no expression of acceptance, and as you recognize that truths within our physical reality are not actually truths, they are beliefs. This is not to say that they are not real — they are quite real — but they are not absolutes. They are not truths.

You associate them as truths and therefore you generate a perception of absolutes, and in that perception of absolutes, there is NO allowance for difference.

Therefore, when TDM spoke for his truth, the conflict is when other people speak
of their truth, that we want their truth to be our truth or vice versa.

There is no absolute, everyone speaks from his or her own truth. The point is you speak from your own beliefs, your own expressed beliefs. There are truths and there is the definition of a truth. A truth is some expression, which is translatable in every area of consciousness in some manner.

In practical down-to-earth matter, truth should represent accurately your awareness of something. If I were to repeat what someone said, or if I were to explain what I did, then my common definition of it would be that I presented that information as accurately as possible to the person and therefore expressing truth.

Now, this is a very strongly expressed belief by many, many, many individuals within our physical reality, and it is very strongly influencing in many different manners.

The belief systems that are strongest to us individually, we would call that a truth. You express it each day within your focuses. You associate with it continuously. Many of your automatic responses are associated within yourselves as truth.

Many of your truths — all of your truths — are beliefs, but as you identify them as
truths, you do not see them as beliefs. You do express them, but you do not identify them as beliefs.

Therefore, they are not questioned. You do what you do, for this is true. You do not question many expressions within your environments and within each other, for you assess that they are truths and therefore they are absolutes within YOUR estimations.
So the problem is when trying to communicate your truth to somebody who is different, it almost … there becomes a question of honesty, rather than truth.
You’re not being dishonest if you’re communicating your truth to another individual whose truth is different than yours, but they may perceive it that way.

What we are witnessing now within our world are individuals who express their truths and their differences in their truths, and there is no bending. For you do not question your own truths, and therefore they must be absolute and all other individuals must accept them, for your truth is THE truth and another individual’s truth is wrong, and it is questioned. This is very true in most religious beliefs

We must be aware of what your truths are and recognizing that they are not truths. It is important that you pay attention to what you do and you pay attention to your emotional communications and to your translations of thoughts, but within your world most individuals do not.

You must now move your attention to how you project energy outwardly in interaction with other individuals and how that offers a contribution within your world in what manner you choose to be generating that energy and how it is affecting of other individuals.

who are the directors of gerbang perdana?

Don't know who the directors of GP are, but I do know that there are some very scenic bridges over some beautiful man made lakes in our newest Federal Territory. Any connection?

i totally can't agree with those peoples are complaining Mega Projects that done by Tun M. Just imagine, how peak at Subang airport right now if there is no KLIA coming up. How many ppls knew Malaysia if there is no Formula One. KLCC... nowadays become symbol of Malaysia. Of course, there is some failure mega projects and how peak KL traffic if there is no new putrajaya administration coming up... don't tell me u never make mistake in your life... but important thing we must learn from mistake... at least we must know how to carry on the mega projects in more properly way and complete it without losing people money... If u think mega projects are wasting money, please stop going to KLIA when u wan go for travel... Stop shopping at KLCC... But dun later complain there is no brand shop at Malaysia... stop watching F1.... For the Scenic Bridge, i think should be carry on in order to solve the heavy traffic in existing causeway and more fair for Johorian since Penang can have second bridge.. why not the causeway can replace with the bridge then we can increase the tourism for Johor...

Update: Star online has published the letter, ditto! In MS-WORD format!

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/4/25/nation/20060425194101&sec=nation

Kinda late, but i think they wanna proof a point that there wasnt any media gag!

Nevertheless, i dont think this would have happened if not for Screenshots & Malaysiakini highlighting it!

Kudos to you guys!

Folks

lucia asked who are the directors of gerbang perdana?

Funny, when the story first broke out by Jeff, I went to Gerbang Perdana website and saw the list of names of the board of directors.

The whole page disappeared - all the names taken down

link here:http://www.gerbangperdana.com.my/servlets/sfs?s=RdfAYaHKXliVlAsM&t=/Default/onStory&i=1129525537501&b=1129525537501&l=0&ParentID=0&sort=Price&StoryID=1129883542187

Looks like they have took down the page. The chairman was Razali Ismail- our former ambassador/Rep to the UN.

I'll see whether I can find it through Google's cache.

With the controversy running, even the Gerbang Perdana website is scared to put who are the directors.

There goes the 100 million ringgit - where even the board of directors went into hiding.

What kind of company is that? they even want to hide the names of the board of directors at the height of this controversy and yet want the 100 MILLION RINGGIT of rakyat to be doled out by the Govt?

I put my life on the fact the names of directors were there a few days ago.

I feel sorry for our old man. He's old but he's not senile, but he's still wise. While he's still around, we got nothing to lose but listening to his opinion. Singaporeans are clever. They know their government is 'lee dynasty' yet the keep quiet, because the government is doing a good job and everyone is so much richer and happier. Malaysians as stupid, because we 'fight' so much, we dispose off our Dr M, because imagine if he creates a post of Senior Minister of Malaysia, who will not make noise? We're silly in that sense.

Many Malaysians are silly in another sense. They do not see WHY singapore doesn't want to build the bridge. Our Port of Tanjung Pelepas is developing so quick, and we're 'stealing' a lot of their businesses from Port Keppel (the singapore port). If we open up the waterway, and let the still water flow, a lot more trafic can flow throught Selat Tebrau, making it even more attractive an alternative for ships to stop in our relatively cheaper port. Singapore of course cannot let this happen. THINK! Hence they enpackage it together with issues that benefit them too like asking for sand and airspace. That's very cunning isn't? Additionally there are already plans from singapore to reclaim their sea right up to their edge. Isn't this another effort to KILL off Port of Tanjung Pelepas? By narrowing selat tebrau, by making the water so much shallower? Singapore has a lot of other seas surrounding it to develop. Singapore's hub is on the south of the island anyway. Why build north-wards?

I'm not against singapore. I sympathize with them. I'm Malaysian Chinese, and i feel for the people of my ethnic group in Singapore. They need water to survive, they need resources to survive. But it's just that they're abusing us as though Malaysians are stupid people. When u come abroad (i'm living in london), and u talk to other people about how much we sell our water for to singapore, everyone will be stunned. Even china sells water at a more expensive rate to Hong Kong, a lot more than malaysia to singapore. And hong kong is china's territory!!!

I feel that a lot of us do not appreciate what Dr M has done to us. The fact that you can type here and read these messages are also direclty or indirectly brought by the IT development spearheaded by Dr M. He might not be right in many things. A lot of the times i cannot agree with him. E.g. why does he wanna speak so much of nonsense in international stage criticizing this and that making other people sell our Ringgit and affect our economy. But we cannot deny, that Dr M has lifted a lot of people out of poverty and created a massive middle class. What happens now is this middle class, fully educated, are trying to use Western-style free speech to abuse him. If Malaysians revere our old man like how Singaporeans revere their old man Lee Kuan Yew, our development in Malaysia can reach even greatest heights. But for political gain, malaysians like to step on each other.

On the bridge issue, i personally felt quite hurt in terms of pride, when Pak Lah announced to scrap the plan. It's such a blow and cowardly move. I understand that he has his reasons, and it's better for the rakyat etc, but we have to understand that this project was initiated with the sweat of Dr M almost a decade a lot, how much effort, time, and money is put into this. And we just abandon it so cowardly. Not because we cannot disagree with singapore after bilateral negotiations. But unilaterally we pull out.
Be it crooked or be it straight, the bridge will have be be built eventually. We know that the causeway is too old and it's bad for water flow. If we dont build it now, the next leader after Abdullah will do so, if not, the next one will.

Although i dont always agree with Dr M, i have to say thanks for giving all malaysians such a better quality of living in your 20-year-old reign.

Thanks

Actually it is no brainer to see that Putraya is a bit at the excessive side, mainly on the bridges, buildings, landmarks etc etc.

I have visited many offices in Putrajaya, and mind you many of them (cubicles) are empty and they are very wide and beautiful. Putrajaya itself is a good idea, at least from a normal citizen like me - it makes KL less crowder etc, but it certainly can be done with (much) cheaper cost. And remember Airport LIMO - this is definitely of the blood suckers especially in the early time because you are stucked with expensive taxi fare, because you simply has no option for coventional taxi.

I'll also like to add one more thing. We had seen Tun Ghaffar's passing away recently and how much of respect was laid on our late leader. We know that when our leaders pass away, we always feel sad, we feel thankful for what they have done to us. We know very well one day Dr M pass away, he'll probably receive the grandest of all burrial, and conferred the greatest of titles. But why do we not wanna let our old man see a bit of our appreciation while he's still alive and NOT SENILE? We do we want to actively abuse and criticize our old man while he's alive, only to revere him when he's dead. Isn't that a bit too late. Read all the articles other people has posted above (before me), and you could see how strongly they criticize/ abuse mahathir with totally disrespective language, to a leader that has put our country on international map.

Yes Abdullah will receive the same fate too, and will only be revered after he dies.

Talking about Malaysia's water calamity (okay I have been biased myself), my common sense tell me that something is missing, not right which in the end is like Malaysia becomes the victim, and Singaporean is a big bully boy.

Although I have tried to listen to both parties, I think I will have to listen to my common sense as it is always right...

To all other people who has written comments, you may be the same people who take LRT in KL, you may be the same people who drive in our many highways everydays, and you may be broadband users. You may be shoppers at KLCC.

When things work your way, you keep quiet. When things work against your way, you'll criticize and criticize.

I'm certain for one thing. When you go abroad, and when people ask you 'where is Malaysia', you will mention our twin towers. Because if you are rich enough to even fly abroad, i presume you must have benefited a lot from malaysia's development under mahathir. Yet why make so many criticism on our old man.

Cheers Ironicboy! You're the only one who actually make sense here. :) I thought I could only read about how great the opposition are in this website... lol!

Gerbang Perdana was incorporated on Sept 26, 1998, and has an authorised share capital of RM50mil. It is owned by a consortium of three shareholders – Merong Mahawangsa Sdn Bhd (60%), DRB-Hicom Berhad (20%), and Detik Nagasari Sdn Bhd (20%). -STAR-

Dr Mahathir was talking to reporters after witnessing the signing of the contract between the Government and Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd to build bridge and rail links on the Gerbang Selatan Bersepadu project in Johor. The project, which costs RM1.1bil and will consist of a new Customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex (CIQ), a bridge and a railway station, is now 15% complete. The contract was signed by Public Works Department Director-General Tan Sri Zaini Omar and his deputy Datuk Ng Chong Yuen on behalf of the Government, and Gerbang Perdana chairman Tan Sri Razali Ismail and managing director Datuk Yahya A. Jalil.

-STAR- 4 August 2003

source:-
http://www.mca.org.my/story.asp?file=/articles/news/2003/8/4/17183.html&sec=In+The+News
Malaysia goes ahead with bridge project to replace Causeway

ironicboy

I cannot disagree with what you said about others and those on this blog criticising Dr.M What you said do make sense.

On the balance of things, history will judge Mahathir well. He had 21 years, the country gave him that time.

I believe what irks ordinary Malaysians is not what Mahathir had one Less for Malaysia, putting aside some of his abrasive domestic politics.

As an ex PM, there is an unwritten convention that you let your successor do his job. You whisper into his ears what you don't agree but not to destabilise your successor with such publicity.

Do you hear Past Presidents of the US criticising a sitting President or even ex PM of UK making harsh comments of a sitting PM. Likewise in Australia where the political name calling is the most robust, yet there is some decorum about behaviours of ex PMs.

This is the bone of contention when criticisms are heaped on Dr.M. And this is not the first one he hurled criticisms at the present Govt, Proton issue and others; it is his former Govt, and the present leader was his nominee. But that does not give him the privilege or right to break convention to criticise the Govt of his successor in public.

Quote:"because not many of my statements are being published by the mass media, although they send representatives to attend my press conferences"

Taste your OWN medicine, Tun M.

I wonder Pak Lah will impose the OSA upon Mahathir for revealing the content of Government secrets to the public.Let us wait and see what the Government would do in the next couple of days.

The majority of Malaysians including myself would like to have a straight functional bridge provided that:-

1. A strong ROI is established such that we will be very stupid if it is not built. In other words, we really need the bridge and not the TDM and his cronies want. We all know what a “need” and a “want” is.

2. There won’t be any legal entanglement with Singapore when the bridge is built. Both countries agree to it. We would be very stupid to have long years of legal dispute after a bridge is built.

“ Pak Lah revived the project and finally scrapped it.” Is this a surprise in Bolehland? After all,
why should TDM in a hurry to sign the contract just few months before his retirement? When you have this kind of master then it won’t be a surprise to have that kind of apprentice. The open letter is a fun to read but wouldn’t it a bit too late. The goats already run away and you only repair the fence after the effect. This just shows another third class mentality of Bolehland. If Matthias Chang is so smart, why couldn’t he be hired in the negotiation team when the deal was on? That shows we are not working as one people. When the bridge negotiation was on, the foreign minister of Singapore and their MPs were busily debating it in their parliament. At the same time, our parliament did not show any enthusiasm but rather the dress code for parliamentarians and the color of the shit after eating dragon fruits were more of the interest.

When the leader of Singapore passed down the baton to their successors, they passed down a clean and unpolluted country physically and metaphorically and the senior ministers stay on and guide the young ones cautiously. However, TDM is on the reverse gear degrading himself more like a trouble maker to the government of the day just to fulfill his egoistic feeling.

To cut loss of 100 millions in order not to spend stupidly another 1600 millions with legal entanglement with Singapore in the future is not surprisingly a wise move. People in the stock market know that.

“Abdullah says he won't spend and burden future generations”. We, our children, grandchildren, and great grand children should thank him for that.

Let Pak Lah and the government of the day have a chance to try to build a more just, less crime, less corrupted society. Lets us pull up our socks, go back to basic and work together as one people for a better future for our next generation rather than listening to this old retired man’s egoistic mega project fancy. Let’s not waste any more time in this kind of fancy talk. Focus on 9th Malaysian Plan.

When the going gets tough, the tuN gets going - that's generally been his style. When he stepped down in Oct 2003, the tuN went off immediately to Europe to "rest and recuperate" after 22 years of "hard" work. Today, after launching the great Malaysian debate 2006 ( "Cancelling the crooked bridge: Is it a Crooked or Straight Decision?"), he left for England for a holiday. Here we are, mortal Malaysians, debating, arguing and fighting, while the tuN is enjoying his holiday. The debate aside, one thing continues to puzzle me - Why does the great champion of the third world and Islamic leader, who is known for his vitriolic outbursts against the West, love to holiday in the West, a place he "hates"?

Kingkong

Very well said.

Hope those wannabees/retired politicians and those in Govt now read what you had said. They may learn a thing or two from you here.

Kene

You asked...one thing continues to puzzle me - Why does the great champion of the third world and Islamic leader, who is known for his vitriolic outbursts against the West, love to holiday in the West, a place he "hates"?

You must differentiate and distinguish between the country, the people and the politics or the foreign policy of the Govt of the day of the country.

You may not like Bush's foreign policy, does not mean you got to hate the Americans or the country itself.

Bush may appear like an idiot as a President to you, that does not mean the American people is like him and behave like him. That does not mean you should deny yourself the best education US can offer to your children.

So Mahathir holidaying in the West and his criticisms of the foreign policies of the Govt of West are two different things.They are eggs and oranges. Don't mix them up in the same mental basket. If you do that, you will find yourself in an untenable for you and for your children's future.

Just like, the ugliness and stupidity of our Malaysian leaders' attitude and behaviour does not mean we Malaysians share the same ugliness and stupidity our politiicans manifest day in and day out.

Thanks, Frank & Honest for your comments. I raised the question about Dr.M's fondness for holidaying in the West because one normally does not patronise a place which one speaks so badly about so often and so openly. Dr. M hasn't often talked about the morally decadent West and how the "West has colonised Asian leader's minds" (see website below for more on this quote)

But on second thought, you may be right. After all, Dr. M did visit Singapore (a place and people he despises) in October 2004 to give a keynote address at the new Singapore Management University. See http://www.smu.edu.sg/news/smunews2004/oct2004.asp.

The reports on the website reflect that Dr. M was his usual self even in Singapore - scathing about the West but appears to have been respectful of the host and didn't say anything unpleasant about Singapore. But he appears not to have been as pleasant about Malaysia when discussing the Anwar matter: "The judge did not say (Anwar) did not (commit sodomy). The only problem was the police got the date wrong. So, now if somebody is murdered and you know that murder was committed by so and so … but if the date is wrong, you are going to be acquitted. So, if you feel like murdering, come to Malaysia."

When we talk so much about the crooked bridge, have we ever thought of listening to the view of thousands and thousdands of Malaysians who use the existing causeway everyday?

There are blue colar workers and school students, who ride and rush across the causeway as early as 5am. There are factory workers, women, who walk across the causeway just to beat the jam. What these people want is just to make a living, making some SGD to raise a family back home.

To this group of peole, whether crooked half bridge or full straigh bridge, a bridge is only good if it is not adding burden onto them. A scenic bridge will mean toll collection on all modes of transport. In addition, you cannot walk to the other end of the elevated bridge anymore.

Look at the Secondlink, it is a scenic full straight bridge, but it is under utilised. Part of the reason? The heavy toll charge.

Traffic jam on the existing causeway is mainly due to the handling of the immigrations and customs on both ends. If this is not resolved or improved, an elevated bridge will be just another parking space for cars so that all passengers can really have a good view of the straits.

The clause in the ‘Wayleave Agreement’ with Singapore is clear enough on this, noted Mahathir.

Below is what has been agreed on the water pipes:

“That the licensee (Singapore) shall take full responsibility financially or otherwise for any alteration to the pipeline that may become necessary by reason of any alterations or improvements made or to be made on the Johor causeway and on receiving not less than six months previous notice in writing from the licensors (Malaysia) shall thereupon carry out the alteration in accordance with such notice and shall have no claim for any compensation.”

What is the "Wayleave" agreement ?
I took a close look at the 2 original water agreements and I could not find any clause pertaining to the above.

That's because you didnot look carefully. Look again!

And who said ex-PMs or ex-Presidents donot criticise the sitting PM/President?

We are a looser as we have signed a contract for 999
years for the supply of water to Singapore at 3sen per
gallon with no clear terms for its revision.This
ridiculous contract had placed Singapore in a position
of strength in any of its dealings and negotiations
with us.

The issue of the "scenic" bridge is just a
ramification of this stupidity.What Singapore is
saying is that "you have made yourself a fool in your
deal with me before why not this time and all the time
?".The culprit that we must go after is actually the
foolish crook that signed the contract on the water
supply.

Some speculated that we were lured into signing the
agreement by the wishful hope for an "off-set package"
from Singapore in the form of land concessions which
could be "hived-off" ,by not tying it directly to the
water supply contract.It was a stupid attempt driven
by greed to get blood out of stone.

The irony of the whole situation is that the whole
country had been drawn into a fiery debate and
finger-pointing exercise and in the process we have been fooling
and deceiving each other as to the root of the
problem.

JEFF OOI says: The Rashomon Effect?

The whole episode make us look like we are born fools
and deserved to be treated likewise especially by our
desperate and presumptuous neighbor like Singapore.
Maligned not and punish not the crook and let the
nation go bananas.

Only Dr.M has the clue or could even be the person responsible for this
imbroglio as the agreement was signed during his
premiership .He therefore has a duty to enlighten all of us
on this blunder.