Screenshots

Folks

Dr. M should join forces with Anwar.

They made a good team while in Govt and they should still make a good team now outside Govt.

When in Govt, they both did a pretty good job in defending the Govt in the name of national iinterest.

Now both are OUT of Govt, with the compliments of the other, they both are still doing a prettty good job in condemning the Govt in the name of public interest.

I say, we need them back as team.

Birds of a feather SHOULD flock together.

And, oh, never mind if one accused the other of questionable sexual orientations,while the other accused of one o having a devious and manipulative mind unseen since the days when hell was created.

I suggest they join forces and form another political party and call it "Kesedihan" and take on their former UMNO-riddled Govt.

Folks

The following was printed by NST in the link given by Jeff.

Worth noting this while we engage on this virtual bridge fiasco and put the Rashamon Effect into context:

Here it is:

'Detailed account of options available to us'

On April 25, Tan Sri Fuzi Abdul Razak gave a detailed account on why the Malaysian government decided to abort the plan to build a bridge to replace the Causeway. The decision was reached after studying four options before the Government.

Option 1: Approve the Broad Political Understanding (BPU) and proceed with detailed negotiations to conclude a final agreement.

With such a strong mandate, the Government could have gone ahead with the project and persuaded Malaysians later.

But the problem is the lingering concern that too much — sand and airspace — is being given away for the sake of the bridge.

Option 2: Proceed with the half-bridge to join the Singapore part of the Johor Causeway. Biggest problem with this option is that expert advice shows the need to consult and obtain approval of Singapore for the relocation of PUB water pipelines in the context of water and separation agreements.

Attorney-General also points out that if the Malaysian part of the Causeway is demolished unilaterally, Singapore could even halt KTM’s use of the remaining Singapore part of the Causeway on account of structural integrity.

This will directly affect the running of railway services to Singapore. Should this continue for six months, KTM land in Singapore will revert to the republic.

Option 3: Unilaterally build a half-bridge that can eventually be linked to become a full bridge.

No guarantee that Singapore would agree to build its side of the bridge without a balance of interests. This element of uncertainty would mean that Malaysia would be waiting for the bridge to be linked at Singapore’s pleasure.

Such a hanging bridge would become a subject of ridicule and would affect Malaysia’s image.

Option 4: Not to proceed with any bridge.

This was the option chosen by the Government, taking into account public sentiment on exporting sand and opening up airspace to the republic.

The Government’s decision to scrap the bridge project would prevent both sides from being embroiled in endless political bickering and legal disputes.

The decision is not necessarily a win-lose situation. Malaysia did not lose even if it did not get the bridge.

Singapore too did not get what it wanted — sand and airspace.

'Main points of contention:'

* Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says that he informed the then Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that Malaysia intended to build a half bridge to replace the Causeway.

Goh said that he would accept that decision, though he did not think that it was ideal.

Mahathir took this to mean that he had Singapore’s agreement to build a bridge, since the exchange between both of them was in writing.

* Tan Sri Fuzi put Goh’s letter in context. He noted that following Goh’s letter, Dr Mahathir wrote to the Singapore PM and said: "I think we have now come to a point where it would be important for us to prioritise our discussions.

"The approach that both sides have adopted so far in dealing with the outstanding issues in a package has not yielded any meaningful results.

"In view of this, Malaysia has now decided to discontinue the package approach and to give the highest priority to first resolving the long-delayed water issue, particularly the price of raw water.

"Once this issue is satisfactorily and amicably resolved, I am confident that Malaysia and Singapore would be able to move forward much faster in finding solutions to the other outstanding issues that stand in the way of our bilateral relations."

After receiving this letter from Dr Mahathir, Goh replied that he had decided to withdraw the concession Singapore was prepared to make as part of trade-offs involving the bridge and related issues.

In a diplomatic note, Singapore explained 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.

Here's the rebuttal...

YABhg Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s response to the statement by Ambassador-at-large Tan Sri Fuzi Abdul Razak

1. Tan Sri Fuzi’s rambling explanation about the Bridge over the Tebrau Straits on April 25, 2006, serves only to convince that the Government’s priority and intention is to sell sand to Singapore. If it is not allowed to do so then Malaysia will not get its bridge. The reasoning why the bridge cannot be built comes later and it was not convincing at all.

2. The Tan Sri, as a seasoned diplomat must know that treaties or agreements solemnly entered into by two countries, as are agreements between two parties can only be modified, changed or added to if both sides agree. If there is a dispute regarding the provision or interpretation of the agreement, then there should be arbitration or reference to courts. This is a part of International Law.

3. The provisions of the Wayleave Agreements are precise and clear. There is no specific provision for consulting and obtaining the necessary approval of Singapore for the relocation of the PUB water pipelines.

4. In case the Tan Sri has not read the Wayleave Agreement, I quote below the relevant paragraph;

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

5. The provision is specific for the causeway. Singapore can claim it does not apply to pipes laid on land, (although the normal practice is to regard Wayleave Agreements to apply all the way) but it cannot claim that the Agreement does not apply to the Causeway. There can therefore be no reason for not complying with the Wayleave Agreement with regard to the causeway.

6. In fact there had been many alterations to the causeway and pipelines in the past without any objection by Singapore or Malaysia.

7. Because Singapore was unwilling to make a decision on building its side of the bridge to replace its side of the causeway, I informed Singapore that Malaysia intended to build a bridge on its side to land on a part of the causeway also on its side. The Singapore side of the causeway will not be touched. The connection will continue to be between the retained portion of the Johore Causeway and the Singapore half of the causeway.

8. The Singapore PM, Goh Chok Tong in his letter to me clearly stated that “ …… if you wish to proceed immediately to replace just your side of the Causeway with a bridge, I shall accept it, though I think this is not ideal.”

9. There was no condition attached to this acceptance, no mention of sand or airspace.

10. Although the exchange was in the form of letters, it was clear and recorded in writing that I proposed to build a bridge on the Malaysian side and the Singapore PM accepted it. Thus a unilateral decision became bilateral when Singapore acceded and accepted. Any change must similarly be agreed to by both sides.

11. For Singapore to add conditions more than two years later for the supply or 50 million cubic meters of sand for 20 years and to allow the Singapore Air Force to fly in Malaysian Air Space would constitute unilateral change. Malaysia can reject the new condition and insist on Singapore honouring the agreement between the two Prime Ministers.

12. It is the Malaysian Government, which tacitly agreed to the Singapore unilateral condition when it decided that it would not build the bridge because it is not in a position to supply sand or open its airspace because of opposition by Malaysians.

13. The proper thing to do if the Government wants to build the bridge would be to seek arbitration or refer to a court if Malaysia is uncertain as to the right of Singapore to impose new conditions unilaterally. Actually there is no need to doubt Malaysian rights in its own territorial waters. But the Government of Malaysia did not do its best to reject the condition. It gave in supposedly because the Malaysian legal authorities believe Singapore is in the right. It would be interesting to read the grounds for the A.G. to conclude that Singapore has what amounts to extra territorial rights and Malaysia has no sovereign right within its own territorial waters.

14. Talks about the possibility of Singapore refusing to allow the bridge to connect with the Singapore half of the causeway is sheer nonsense. The Malaysian bridge will land on the Malaysian portion of the causeway. The only way Singapore can prevent traffic from the bridge from passing through from the Malaysian portion of the Causeway into the Singapore half is to put a barrier across the causeway border. This would certainly constitute an unfriendly act. It would be Singapore cutting its nose to spite its face. The damage to Singapore businesses would be at least as bad as that which Malaysia may suffer. But in reality Singapore needs Malaysia more than Malaysian needs Singapore. We have our ports and airports to replace Singapore ports, airports and other services.

15. All in all it is clear that the Malaysian Government is more interested in selling sand to Singapore than to build the bridge. This keenness to sell sand is strange for Malaysia does not need the proceeds from sale of sand. Despite my alleged profligate ways when I was PM Malaysia is not so bankrupt that it has to depend on selling sand.

16. That any Malaysian leader should not shudder in horror at the idea of scraping ONE BILLION SQ. METERS from Malaysian sea-beds continuously over a period of 20 years, thereby destroying all the fish breeding grounds of Malaysian seas, depriving Malaysian fishermen of their livelihood, destroying Malaysia’s marine ecology defies the imagination. That there should be any Malaysian leader willing to entertain this idea, to destroy Malaysian seas to satisfy Singapore speaks badly of his love for his country.

Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad

most of dr.M's arguments are untenable. including:
- the assertion that there was an agreement with singaore when there was none.
- the assumption that the "pipeline alteration on causeway" clause is applicable to a new/half bridge.
- if malaysia can unilaterally build a half-bridge on our side of the border, does that mean singapore can also unilaterally landfill to her side of the border?
- to suggest that the gov is more interested in selling sand than build the bridge is clearly a scarecrow setup to confuse the audience
- which brings to the point that since these argument are clearly untennable, they are obviously not meant as legal arguments but for local consumption.
- that might suggest that dr.M is doing more than just giving his opinions, but setting the scene for something more cynical.

Folks

Dr M quoted the Wayleave Agreement: "That the Licensee (i.e. Singapore) shall take full responsibility financially or otherwise for any alteration to the pipeline that may become necessary by reason of any alteration or improvements made or to be made on the Johore Causeway and on receiving not less than six months previous notice in writing from the licensors (i.e. Malaysia) shall thereupon carry out the alteration in accordance with such notice and shall have no claim for any compensation"

We should consider whether there are other binding clauses that may relate to this clause.

You can't read a clause in isolation. If there are none, then this clause stays.

Even then, there is just a thing in law called law of equity.

If one were to read this clause in isolation,it means that if Malaysia wants to alter the pipeline or to alterations to the Causeway, at its own whims and fancies and in any form or cost it likes, then Singapore MUST abide.

I don't think in the court of law, that one party is allowed such an absolute control of the circumstance from which the other party has no cause for redress if enforcement of the clause is at the disadvantage of the other party.

Dr. M's reading of just one part of the clause is too narrow and can be misleading to the public. Bearing in mind Dr, M is a medical practitioner although is secretayr is a lawyer, but whether Mathias Chang is competent enough on this?

I cannot believe that those Singapore chaps including the Senior Minister LKY, with highly impressive qualifications in law, would be so dumb not to realise the full implications of that clause and had position Singapore to take on Malaysia or Dr.M's point of argument.

Also note: Singapore had been trying too hard to be polite and correct with Malaysia since the separation in 1965, trying to please Kuala Lumpur. Unfortunately, in doing so, Kuala Lumpur takes them to look like fools, and now Singapore is basically saying, when the chips are down, "we will take you on all the way to the International Court".

With Arts degrees, you can't afford to be clever by half, when dealing with those smarties with impressive Degrees across the Causeway

Frank&Honest,
I think some people playing the "minority"(in culture, economy) and "victims" cards too long until they lost their directions.

Ironically, Tun M and current PM are both come from Island.

Islander mindset perhaps.

Dear F&H,

You said - "Dr. M should join forces with Anwar."

I say -" Are u nuts...Dr. M is doing this just to sidetrack us Malaysians." He is being sued by Anwar for god sake.

moo_t

You said Tun M from the Island. I thought he is from Kedah and his house is repoted in Alor Star

Which Island? Singapore??

gearstick

How do you know they are not good friends (unknown to the media) now they both are out of Govt.

In politics, anything can happen between two former enemies . They tend to be in bed together. (Oops!! wrong pun used in this case)

Isk,
Although I'm not too clear about the entire situation, I must say your points were very good. One thing though. Was there a proper agreement/contract/treaty signed between the governments of Singapore and Malaysia concerning the building of a bridge? An exchange of letters between two heads of state surely cannot constitute a treaty under international law. At best it is a gentleman's agreement, and certainly not binding on either side. So was there a formal signed treaty/contract? Anyone enlighten me on this?

Also I have not seen any evidence that the Malaysian government was willing to sell sand to Singapore, in fact, we cancelled the building of the bridge because we could not accede to their demands of airspace and sand. Dr M is clearly trying to poke his nose in again, and sadly some people mistake it for patriotism.

Tun M is at it again. He is suffering from the legacy sickness. I think all political leaders have this common sickness. Having been in office for 22 years does not mean that everything that one had done is always right. The problem is that being the prima donna for such a long period, there is always a tendency to feel that one does no wrong and perhaps the long period in office can make one feel that one's decision is supreme and that everything is done in the interest of the nation. Nay, things in reality do not happen the way it is. The crooked bridge fiasco is one. It is a march of follies. Yes, in the exchange of letters between two parties, certain points may be agreed and agreed in principle under certain conditional situation. However, if condition changes, the same agreement in principle will no longer hold. In business as in politics, such equity applies. O.K. we agree to an exchange but situation changes and therefore, what has been agreed before cannot be enforced and moreover, in this case, there is no formal agreement between two parties and what more, you have a situation between two sourvreign coutries which have yet to enter into agreement.
The problem is that the present government does not need a "dowager" to be sitting behind a curtain and ech time a decision needs to be made, the government will have to turn its head and look back to see or hear the reaction. If this were to happen, I dread for the future of the country.