|
Crooked People Will Always Give
Crooked Answers
On the Scandal Of the Crooked Bridge
A Point By Point Rebuttal
Of the Government’s Answers
To Tun Dr. Mahathir’s Questions
More Cover-Ups, Distortions
Misrepresentations & Misleading
Statements
Exposing
The Declassification Rubbish
BY
MATTHIAS CHANG
Point By Point Rebuttal
1. Declassification Exercise – Fraud On The Public
On the 17th April 2006, soon after the scandal of the “Crooked
Bridge” gripped the nation, I called for a Press Conference to
expose the misrepresentations, misleading statements and
distortions made by the Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar.
I brought to the attention of the journalists the book “Water
Talks? If Only It Could” published by the Singapore Government
which contained many classified documents pertaining to the
scandal of the aborted bridge. In the circumstances, in law and
in fact, these documents are in the public domain and cannot be
considered “classified documents” anymore.
The New Straits Times on 15th July 2006 headlined “DECLASSIFIED
– What the Official Records Tell” giving the impression that the
documents referred to in the accompanying articles are documents
which have not been referred to in the book published by the
Singapore government.
Brendan Pereira of NST attempted to give credence to the
declassification exercise when he wrote in an article entitled
“Why this veil must be lifted” that the government “went into
unfamiliar territory and declassified confidential documents
relating to discussions on bilateral issues with Singapore.” The
spin was obvious - that the government is bending backwards to
be truthful and transparent and that these “declassified
documents” will address and answer Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s
questions.
They have not. Instead They have given rise to more questions!
Brendan further commented: “Everyone can spout opinions, but
there can be only one set of facts. The moment you veer from
those facts, your assumptions are wrong, your views are skewed,
and your protest hollow.”
If truth be told the comment should be directed to himself and
the entire editorial team of the New Straits Times, and the
government.
If only the government and the NST took a few minutes to examine
the book, “Water Talks? If Only It Could” they would have
realised that the following letters, namely:
Lee Kuan Yew’s letter dated 24th August 2000
Dr. Mahathir’s letter to Lee Kuan Yew dated 4th March 2002;
Goh Chok Tong’s letter dated 11th April 2002;
Dr. Mahathir’s letter dated 7th October 2002;
Goh Chok Tong’s letter dated 14th October 2002
were in the public domain and therefore need not be
declassified. It is old news and the public is well aware of
their implications. The public is aware of these documents way
back in April 2006 when I brought them to their notice. But it
took the government and the NST boys almost three (3) months to
come to grips with these documents and yet they still cannot get
it right!!
The spin which the government is making is a reflection of their
desperation. Because the government controls the mass media, the
spin doctors are banking that the public would accept their
perverse version of the events.
The government and NST must be taking us for fools! It is said
that the 4th floor of the prime minister’s office is staffed
with bright young kids from Cambridge and Oxford. If this is the
best they can do, they are in deep trouble. They are desperate,
desperate enough to distort and mislead.
2. Syed Hamid Albar’s Undertaking
On 13th June 2006, in his typical bravado fashion, the foreign
minister in his press statement said that he will declassify all
documents relating to the bilateral negotiations and lay bare
the truth for all to see. The public is still waiting for the
declassification of the relevant documents in particular the
entire minutes of the meeting between Pak Lah and Goh Chok Tong
of the 1st March 2005 and the minutes of the five rounds of
negotiations between senior officials of Malaysia and Singapore.
In the case of the latter minutes, it is clear that the offer to
sell sand came from Malaysia.
No extracts. We want the full minutes of the meetings. Syed
Hamid Albar must deliver what he had promised on the 13.6.2006!
3. Syed Hamid Albar’s & Brendan Pereira’s Hollow Answers
Who is really veering from facts and making wrong assumptions?
Who is really barking up the wrong tree??
Who is trying to hoodwink the public??
Who is indulging in propaganda??
i) Agreement To Build the Bridge
Fact:
Goh Chok Tong wrote on 11th April 2002:
“Between a new bridge to replace the entire causeway, and one to
replace just the Malaysian side of the Causeway, I like the
former better. Once the new bridge is completed, the Causeway
can be knocked down, which I prefer to be done after 2007. But
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.”
Conclusion:
This is an express agreement and recognition by Singapore of
Malaysia’s right to build a bridge “just your side of the
Causeway,” that is to say the right to build a “half bridge”
within Malaysian territorial waters.
This is an agreement in writing signed by the then prime
minister of Singapore and accepted by the then prime minister of
Malaysia via an exchange of letters. Exactly, as Lee Kuan Yew
wanted in his letter of 24th August 2004.
In law and in fact, agreements can be oral, and or part oral and
part in writing. In this case it was in writing. I am sure well
informed personalities like Brendan Pereira would not dare
venture the argument that an agreement cannot be concluded by
way of exchange of letters.
Fact:
Singapore by way of a diplomatic note purported to “revoke” the
said agreement in 2004. Tan Sri Fuzi, the former Secretary
General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in his press
statement:
“Singapore later further explained in a Diplomatic Note dated 29
November 2004 that the agreement by the then Singapore Prime
Minister was made in the context of the then ongoing
negotiations between the two governments as an overall package
of bilateral issues.”
Conclusion:
Singapore has admitted that there was an agreement on the
building of the full bridge.
Fact:
Singapore aborted the said agreement on the grounds stated
above.
Conclusion - Fact & Law:
Malaysia need not accept Singapore’s grounds for repudiating the
said agreement for the full bridge. Whether Singapore can
repudiate the agreement is a legal issue which can only be
resolved through international arbitration.
That is why Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad said that if Singapore
remains intransigent, Malaysia should refer the matter to
international arbitration.
This dispute does not in any way affects the sovereign right of
Malaysia to build a half bridge within the territory waters of
Malaysia and which has been expressly recognised by Singapore in
the letter of 11th April 2002 written by Goh Chok Tong.
The Malaysian government is more concerned in accommodating
Singapore’s reasons for repudiating the agreement than asserting
its rights to build the half bridge.
The stand taken by the Government is simply – Singapore’s views
are always right and proper. Malaysia cannot and should not
challenge Singapore’s views.
This was the stand taken by the government after the exposé that
Malaysia had agreed to sell sand to Singapore. This is still the
stand of the government as disclosed in the press statement
issued on the 15th July and embellished on 16th July 2006.
But see the contradictions in paragraph (4) below for a detail
analysis.
Fact:
Sand was never an issue in any discussions concerning the bridge
during negotiations between Singapore and Malaysia when Tun Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad was the prime minister. With the termination of
the package approach, airspace was no longer an issue that could
be leveraged by Singapore.
Conclusion:
The conduct of the Malaysian team reflects a team that is devoid
of any strategy and if it had a strategy, it was badly
conceived.
It reflects poorly on the leadership. Maybe if the team played
less golf and concentrated on working effectively, a different
outcome could have played out.
ii) Package Approach Rejected
Fact:
The then prime minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir by a letter
dated 7th October 2002 gave notice that he will discontinue the
package approach. He wrote:
“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 had adopted so far in dealing with 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 review of raw water.”
Fact:
Goh Chok Tong in his letter of 14th October 2002 replied:
Since you now want to deal with the water issue separately and
discontinue the package approach, these trade offs are no longer
possible. And as the package deal is off, I have instructed my
officials to deal with water and other issues individually and
separately, on their stand-alone merits, and no longer as a
package.”
Conclusions - Fact & Law
All issues are now to be treated on their “stand-alone merits.”
This does not distract from the fact Malaysia has a sovereign
right to build a bridge within her territorial waters and that
Singapore has previously acknowledged that right.
Therefore, in any future negotiations for the building of a full
bridge or a half bridge, the parties have agreed not to link
other issues as have been done in the past. Pak Lah after taking
over as prime minister continued with this single issue approach
when he explained his diplomatic approach as:
“plucking the ripe fruit first”
Tan Sri Fuzi in his press statement dated 25th April 2006
explained further Pak Lah’s approach as:
“pluck the low hanging fruit first, and then move on to the
higher ones on the trees.”
In the latest round of negotiations, Singapore had been very
cunning, and did a back door mini-package approach for which the
Malaysian team was so stupid to accept.
Score: Singapore 1, Malaysia 0.
Fact:
As a result of our incompetence and stupidity, Malaysians cannot
even pluck low hanging fruits from the trees within the
territory of Malaysia. We need to get the permission from
Singapore, notwithstanding Singapore’s acknowledgement of our
sovereign right to pluck our fruits in our orchard.
Score: Singapore 2, Malaysia 0
Conclusion:
It is pathetic that our government and enlightened journalist
Brendan Pereira [who used to work for Singapore’s Straits Times
until he was roped in by Kalimullah into Malaysia’s New Straits
Times] are willing to kow tow to Singapore.
Fact:
Sand and airspace were extraneous issues and should not have
been allowed into the negotiations, as has been agreed after
14th October 2002, all issues are to be dealt with as
‘stand-alone merits.” Airspace privileges were withdrawn in
1998.
Score: Singapore 3, Malaysia 0
Result: Malaysia knocked out of the International Competition.
Post-Mortem: Malaysian Team Bungled
The analysis of the events enumerated below leave no doubts that
the Malaysian team bungled. They were outwitted, out-played at
every turn by kiasu Singapore led by Mentor Minister Lee Kuan
Yew. Our team performance was pathetic.
WHY?? Ask Pak Lah and his boys on the 4th Floor of his office
and his spin doctors!!
i) The Left Hand Does not Know What the Right Hand is Doing
If as alleged, the Attorney General’s legal opinion was that
“Malaysia was required to obtained prior approval of PUB in
relation to the alteration of the water pipelines necessitated
by the construction of a bridge, whether it is a full straight
bridge or a scenic bridge (half bridge),” then we the Malaysian
public demand to know why the government informed Malaysians the
following, namely:
Fact:
NST 3.2.2006 Datuk Syed Hamid Albar said:
Malaysia’s position all along was that it had every right to do
anything within its territory. As such, the proposed scenic
bridge was never part of negotiations between the countries. The
one that is under negotiation is the full bridge. If we need to
do the other one (scenic bridge) we do not need to talk to
Singapore.”
Conclusion:
It is nice to know that as at 3.2.2006 the foreign minister who
is a lawyer by training shares my view as stated in the
preceding paragraphs. I hope Brendan Pereira is not accusing the
foreign minister of making the wrong assumptions, veering from
facts and spouting mere opinions.
Fact:
NST 7.2.2006 Syed Hamid Albar:
“We will continue with whatever work needs to be done on our
side. It is Malaysia’s right and sovereignty, and Singapore has
recognised that. Why should we involve other people in works
that are done in our territorial waters and on our own land?
Construction on the scenic bridge is within our jurisdiction. It
is not part of our discussions with Singapore. We have made
ample preparations and held discussions with all parties
including project contractor, GPSB on the design of the bridge.”
NST also reported that the contractor, Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd (GPSB)
had been directed by the Public Works Department (PWD) to resume
work on seabed studies in the Johor Straits, which have been
shelved since 2004.
Conclusion:
Once again the foreign minister shares my view that Singapore
has indeed recognised Malaysia’s sovereign right to do whatever
work within her territory waters. I hope Brendan Pereira and the
boys from Cambridge and Oxford on the 4th floor of PM’s office
is reading this rebuttal.
Fact:
NST 25.2.2006
Johor Bahru: Workers have begun soil test at the Johor Straits
where the scenic bridge is to be built. Technicians were today
seen driving piles into the seabed from a barge anchored near
the causeway.
Fact:
NST 3.3.2006
Foreign Minister George Yeo said the republic had explained the
matter through a third party note.
“We have explained to Malaysia the serious implications of a
unilateral move to demolish its side of the causeway and replace
it with a crooked bridge, however scenic,”
Fact:
NST 4.3.2006
Syed Hamid Albar is perplexed as to why Singapore is harping on
“implications” if Malaysia went ahead and built the scenic
bridge to replace the causeway. The Foreign Minister insists
that the construction of the scenic bridge was never a
negotiating factor with Singapore as it was within Malaysia’s
territory and rights.
“That is why the talks only centred on a full bridge. The scenic
bridge is for us to decide, not anyone else. I was of the idea
that negotiations were going well. Now I want to know if
Singapore is even serious or sincere about negotiating with us.
We made a pact to conduct negotiations away from the glare of
the media, so when Singapore sounded like it was threatening
Malaysia with an ultimatum on the scenic bridge, I’m curious to
know what is actually going on.”
Query: Why is Singapore unhappy at this late stage??
Fact:
NST 10.3.2006
The scenic bridge on the Malaysian side of the Tebrau Straits is
expected to be operational from April 1, 2009. Deputy Works
Minister Datuk Mohd Zin Mohamad said five percent of the
preliminary work has been completed so far.
“We have set aside a buffer zone which will be two meters before
the international boundary. This means the bridge will join the
Malaysian side of the causeway just before the boundary.”
Conclusion:
This rebuts the spin that if Malaysia builds the half bridge, it
will be “hanging” in mid-air if Singapore refuses to allow the
bridge to be “connected” to the Singapore side of the causeway.
Query:
Why is Foreign Minister negotiating on full bridge when
Malaysia’s PWD and the contractor are embarking on a half
bridge?? Was there two separate agendas?? Where and how did Pak
Lah fit in? What is the overall scheme of things?? The rakyat
wants to know at this material time, who was really in charge of
the negotitions.
Fact:
NST 13.3.2006
Malaysia had agreed in principle to build a bridge to replace
the causeway. The agreement was reached at the conclusion of the
fifth round of negotiations between senior officials from two
countries in Putrajaya yesterday.
Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar who confirmed this,
said an official announcement on the accord could be expected
soon.
“We have agreed on the main points of agreement for the building
of a full bridge.”
The negotiations had all along been based on the principle of
quid pro quo with Singapore wanting the right to use Johor
airspace for training flights by its armed forces jets. The
republic in addition, had sought a long term concession for the
supply of sand from Johor for its massive on-going coastal land
reclamation work. Malaysia apparently acceded to both these
requests.
Conclusion:
Malaysia, instead of negotiating on “stand-alone” basis agreed
to a mini package deal, abrogating all previous agreements on
rejecting the “package approach” and selling sand to Singapore!!
Therefore the factor that clinched the deal was Malaysia’s sell
out to Singapore on the issues of sand and airspace.
Query:
The rakyat wants to know whether as at this date, 13.3.2006 the
Cabinet was fully aware of the turn of events and the sell out
by Pak Lah, the Foreign Minister and the 4th Floor Boys in PM’s
office.
Fact:
NST 18.3.2006
DPM statement: Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said
as Malaysia was committed to building the bridge on its side of
the border in the Tebrau Straits, Singapore should join hands to
make a full crossing. Referring to Singapore’s threat to take
Malaysia to the international tribunal for the Law of the Sea
should it unilaterally break the causeway, Najib said it was
Malaysia’s right to build the bridge in its waters.
“This is our right. Nobody can question or deny us this right as
a sovereign nation. The government is committed to building the
bridge.”
Query:
This statement is most peculiar especially after the statement
of Syed Hamid on the 13.3.2006. It implies that even Najib was
not in the loop and was not briefed properly on developments.
Why this reaction??
Conclusion:
The right hand does not know what the left hand and or any other
“hands” are doing.
Fact:
NST 22.3.2006
Putrajaya: Datuk Syed Hamid is seething.
Query:
Why is Syed Hamid Seething, after announcing agreement on
13.3.2006??
NST reported:
Syed Hamid said negotiations were done on the mandate given by
the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdulah Ahmad Badawi and the
Cabinet. The Minister revealed that three options were on the
table for the replacement bridge – a full straight bridge, a
full scenic bridge and a scenic bridge – the last one in the
event that Malaysia did not get Singapore’s cooperation. Pending
the approval for a full bridge, Malaysia has started work on the
scenic bridge, which was expected to be operational in 2009.
Query:
Bearing in mind the alleged legal opinion from the
Attorney-General referred to at the beginning of this
discussion, was there a different legal stance now??
When did the Attorney-General gave his alleged opinion??
If it was way back, why did the government ignore his legal
advice??
Why did the PWD gave a work order to the contractor to
recommence work??
If the legal opinion was given after the government encountered
problems with Singapore, why didn’t the government come out
immediately and said so?? Why the cover-up??
Conclusion:
Something is not right and until today, the government and Pak
Lah have refused to explain to the public. Instead they indulge
in spin and propaganda, demonising Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad for
asking the right questions for and on behalf of the rakyat.
Fact:
NST 22.3.2006
Construction of the bridge to replace the Johor causeway is
proceeding on schedule although talks between Malaysia and
Singapore are continuing, Datuk Seri Najib said yesterday.
“There is no postponement. Construction of the bridge is
proceeding,” the Deputy Prime Minister said
Work on the scenic bridge on the Malaysian side, costing RM620
million is expected to be completed in 36 months.
Conclusion:
The government is telling the rakyat that we are holding fast to
our rights to build the scenic bridge (half bridge).
Query:
Who is telling the truth??
Pak Lah?? Syed Hamid?? Najib??
Whose version of events are correct??
What game plan is this??
Fact:
NST 13.4.2006
Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd has been asked to construct a permanent
road from the new customs, Immigration and Quarantine Complex to
the Johor causeway.
Gerbang Perdana which is the contractor for the scenic bridge,
has also been instructed to immediately stop all work on the
bridge.
Conclusion:
The wayang kulit has finally come to an end at a huge cost to
the taxpayers. The foregoing analysis shows all too clearly that
someone or a group of people have messed up the scenic bridge
project.
The Cover-Up and Excuses
Spin Doctors Takes Over to Mislead the Public
NST 13.4.2006
Prime Minister Datuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in a statement said:
“The government decision was made after taking into account the
voices and statements of the Malaysian people, especially on the
supply of sand and airspace.”
“Problem will arise when we have to cut the Causeway, the water
pipes and railway track and connect them to the new bridge. The
problems will continue.”
Another view as reported was:
“Even if we were to build the crooked bridge on our side, we
would have to get Singapore’s consent before we even touch one
brick of the Causeway to link it to the bridge,” one source
said.
Query:
What happened to our determination to complete the bridge, that
there will be no postponement, that it will be operational by
2009??
How very strange that all of a sudden, legal issues are being
used to cover-up the mistakes made. But who made these
mistakes??
Pak Lah, please explain to the rakyat all the previous press
statements made by your ministers.
Conclusion:
Pak Lah and his team messed up the whole project.
Pak Lah and his team were made to eat humble pie by the kiasu
Singaporeans - challenging Malaysians to build the half bridge.
Like a dog, the government ministers put their tails between
their legs and ran for cover.
Truly a “half-past six government!!!
Rakyat’s Demands
Pak Lah must be honest with the rakyat. The least he should do
is to apologise to the entire nation for bringing the nation
into disrepute, scandal and contempt.
He must declassify all the minutes of meetings relating to the
bilateral negotiations between Malaysia and Singapore since he
took over as Prime Minister.
This demand is necessary so that the entire nation can learn
from this scandalous experience and ensure that no future
government and or ministers would conduct such disgraceful
negotiations whereby Malaysia almost sold her sovereignty and
rights to a foreign and hostile government and neighbour.
We the rakyat deserves better that what we have been given thus
far.
Walk the talk. No more spin. Listen to Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
16th July 2006
Kuala Lumpur
Matthias Chang
Matthias Chang is a Barrister with 30 years legal experience. He
was the former political secretary to the then prime minister of
Malaysia, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
The views expressed herein are his personal views.
Matthias Chang is willing to debate with anyone on the issues
raised and challenge anyone to prove him wrong!
|
